The Truth Behind the Godawful New (Old) Roman Catholic Missal

On the first Sunday in Advent, a new English translation of the Roman Catholic masses was implemented (by mandate) in Catholic churches throughout United States. These changes of the are small, dramatic and disruptive -- especially for the priests celebrating the masses.

Why have these changes been written into the mass?

The Vatican claims that a translation more faithful to the original Latin is needed. Is this the real reason for this disruption? I don't think so.

The nostalgia for the more Latin-faithful mass is an outgrowth of a desire for the church that used the Latin mass. This is nostalgia for the church in which less preaching took place, the priest presided with his back toward the congregation, only the hands of the priest touched the Eucharist, and wherein women -- who were prohibited from setting foot on the altar -- were required to cover their heads.

The Second Vatican Council did not merely change the mass from Latin to vernacular in 1963; it rendered the Latin mass (depending upon whom one asks) improper or forbidden entirely. Between 1962 and 1988 Latin masses were often celebrated under the radar -- somewhat in the "upper room" manner and spirit, ironically enough, of Dignity's masses and those said by woman priests.

I happen to find the the Latin mass beautiful, and at first I seemed to object less to the new changes than most Catholics I know. I attend Spanish language mass in from time to time. In that liturgy, we already use phrasing similar to that the New Old Missal introduces. The Vatican is not nearly so interested, however, in the accuracy of the translation of the mass as it is in dragging today's vernacular mass back in time. They want the 1962 mass with all the trimmings. This new translation business is a tasty treat for the lockstep sheep and papist throwbacks.

Though I seem to be alone in it, I don't mind having to use (the new) "consubstantial" in the Nicene Creed. "Consubstantial" -- it's so, so Latin, I almost like it. There is, however, good reason not to like this kind of change. Daunting Latinate terms like "consubstantial" are tools in the grift. When the boys in the Vatican want our money, they remind us that all are welcome -- no theology knowledge needed. But when people in the pews challenge man-made doctrine, the men in miters are all too quick to remind us that our lack of advanced degrees from the Pontifical Gregorian University might leave us less than qualified to challenge the Holy See on any Catholic matter.

The average Catholic is too busy living a life to familiarize him or herself with the specifics of each papal encyclical, each tenet of dogma and the many voluminous, seminal Roman Catholic theological texts -- and the Magisterium likes it that way. Ecclesiastical jargon makes the bishops look like they have the inside line on God. Hence the current pope's fervor for evangelization in the developing world: Hungry, illiterate people make good converts.

The New Old Missal matter works well as a diversionary tactic. Its well-timed fanfare shifts attention away from a pontificate mired in perversion. It is easier to sit at the long table in a gown parsing the Filioque than it is to sit at that same table and discuss the ordination of women, the Vatican's culpability in spreading HIV and AIDS in the developing world, and its own spiritual cancer in the form of bishop-facilitated child rape.

Reminding Catholics that salvation does not extend to all is one of the chief aims of these changes in the text of the mass.

The Eucharistic Prayer, the most solemn and critical prayer in the mass, through which the bread and wine are transubstantiated, has undergone radical change.

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlastingcovenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

has become this:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me.

In this prayer "cup" has become "chalice." While "chalice" may more accurately render a strict construction translation of the Latin, it is hard to imagine that "chalice" best describes the vessel Jesus might have called some version of His "Kiddush cup." Somehow, imperial "chalice" seems benign when seen alongside the following godawful change: "It will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins."

If the language is to be believed, last Sunday the blood of Christ saved everyone. This week, not so much.

Thus the English-speaking United States is reminded that the universal, transcendent, Catholic savior now pours out his blood for some and not others. This stipulation may appear in the original Latin, but even if it's a technically accurate translation of the original phrase, it's inconsistent with what Catholics have been expressing in our Creed for 50 years. Now, we are asked to pray to the Christ who saves many of us and not all of us. The focus of the prayer shifts onto the excluded. Who are they? Atheists, agnostics, non-Catholic believers and -- the real targets -- Roman Catholic self-excommunicants.

This Christ who saves many is the Christ Joseph Ratzinger wants (perhaps as his second in command) in his smaller, darker, more ancient church made up of that new "many."

It was interesting to watch, at the Saturday night vigil, my exemplary priest muddle through these changes with his usual open heart, and it was interesting to see the highly sophisticated reader, homilist and teacher struggle through the stiff and unwieldy and language of "corrected" sections of the mass.

When I first started to study Latin in college, I began to try to translate the lyric poems of Catullus. Catullus was a contemporary of Caesar Augustine, so the Latin vernacular in which he wrote would have been about the same as that used by Romans during the time Jesus lived on earth. The grammar and Latin in many of Catullus's poems are straightforward, and often the verse is bawdy, so young poets who can manage a little Latin are often drawn to translating it. It was through translating Catullus that I learned the little Latin I know, and through reading bad translations of Catullus that I first began to observe that a good translation of any text finesses a compromise between sense and literal meaning. In the case of a poem, some measure of "melopoeia" (Ezra Pound's word for the melodious aspect of verse) must enter in and infuse the text in question.

The Eucharistic Prayer may not be a poem in a technical sense, but it functions as one. Besides its obvious purpose -- to catalyze the consecration -- its rhythms reach into the heart like a song with its "word made flesh" message pertaining to hope.

Those who don't care about poems probably think it does not matter that the Eucharistic Prayer, as of last night, is no longer a poem (in English), but poetry is powerful and one of its strengths is its ability to sneak up and evoke strong response from the unsuspecting. The pope didn't do himself any favors when he had the scholars siphon the poetry out of the English Eucharistic prayer, and the translation team's failure to achieve a compromise between certain of the larger truths of our faith and the literal meaning of the words reflects the Vatican's readiness (nothing new) to sacrifice the glory for the power. People will feel the power of the lost poem through its absence.

I came away from mass last night feeling that these new changes are designed to stick it to priests at the parish level. The implementation of the new procedures makes marionettes of priests. It has every Catholic in the U.S. dutifully holding "pew cards" (in my parish they took the form of laminated "cheat sheets") so that all could follow the new, old, unwieldy script. It has congregations doing an obedience dance.

I attended a meeting about a year ago in which these changes in the liturgy were introduced. At one point in the discussion, a friend seated behind me tapped my shoulder. "Psst," he said, pointing to the new translation of the Nicene Creed, "looks like they missed something." He pointed to this:

 "For us men / and our salvation..."

As Vatican scholars in search of a more faithful translation of this prayer labored over every syllable seeking to bring each into line with the original Latin and the true message of the mass, they failed to make some significant corrections.

Maybe the boys in lace and their scholars were absent the day the Latin class learned that "homines" is a form of the noun "homo, hominis," which means "man" as in "human being" or "person." (There's an alternative word for "man" that would have been used to refer to those with Y chromosomes.)

Or maybe the boys in lace just forgot that women are included in the salvation.

The Vatican's choice to revisit the text of the Nicene Creed with the aim of perfecting the English translation from Latin is understandable. When it comes to translating our unified profession of faith (which, in going from "we believe" back to "I believe," would seem to make the prayer less unified.) precision should matter. What is less easy to understand is why the painstaking revision did not include a second look at "for us men / and our salvation." Every Magisterium-sanctioned text we have tells us that women are included in salvation, yet the translators of the "New" (old) Missal thought it unnecessary to pause, in the course their painstaking parsing, to notice what is essentially erroneous about "for us men and our salvation."

This non-oversight says all one needs to know about the spirit of this translation. One should expect nothing better from this pontificate. Why did they not correct this inaccurate language when the Vatican experts were in there fixing everything else? Why does the Credo retain this inaccurate and misogynist language?

You know why. The He-man Woman Haters are sending a message. Swinging their censers. This show of power is Ratzinger's billet doux to lockstep Catholics. He's tossing the sheep a bone. Even the smallest evidence of devolution thrills them. So, why did they boys in lace change the words to the mass?

Because they can.

But do we have to say those words? No. One doesn't get kicked out of mass for not saying the words right. Not yet, at least. I have always love the words of the mass, but I've been tweaking my whole life, correcting sexist language in my own prayers at will.

I'll say some of those new old words when they make sense and decline to say others. Catholics don't need no stinking "pew card." Roman Catholics don't an imprimatur to pray.

While Joseph Ratzinger longs for an older, darker, smaller church, he seems yet to wish for even those whom his old new mass excludes (and whom salvation eludes!) to continue to drop greenbacks into the basket on a stick on Sunday.

The Vatican message as it pertains to women and girls is clear. Perhaps it is time that those Catholics who are, by whatever defect (whether it be gender or excommunication-worthy offense) excluded from Christ's salvation, respond in a language the hierarchs do understand.

Ave legal tender.

What if all the women in the church were to redirect their Advent weekly collection dollars to purchasing gifts for the needy, provisions for food pantries, charitable organizations or Catholic groups which challenge the tyranny of the Ratzinger pontificate? It would be interesting to see what would happen if every Catholic whom the New Old Missal now freshly excludes from salvation, were to boycott the collection basket for the duration of the season of Advent.

I know I'd rather help to put a meal on the table for the ladies and gentleman at my local soup kitchen than a $300 bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape for Bernard Law's table for Christmas dinner.

 

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYpoet

Comments

[Barbara Colnar Morgen]

03:02 AM on 01/24/2012

My husband and I are 40-plus year old Catholics who were married in the Catholic Church in front of our very Catholic families. So, this is the "great reveal" of the first 'big' change in the Catholic church in 48 years (our lifetime)? Woefully, shamefully, pathetically, tragically, and at worst, arrogantly inadequate. My hope is that the Church just needs a better marketing agent and that we just don't understand the real intention behind making changes that not only don't make a difference in the world, they alienate the loyal parishoners who no longer feel like they really 'belong' or are connecting with God during the Mass, like us. The power of these pontifs goes only as far as the global congregation allows -- and I submit that this latest change will definitely cause more division, alienation, attrition and ultimately weakness than "catholic" following. Are you listening, Rome? Let's hope your intentions were truly for some betterment of Catholics and of the church that no Catholic really understands. I think that God would forgive inept marketers. If the changes were instead a narcissistic power play, the Catholic Church may have finally "jumped the shark." Translate THAT into Latin! :) If that's the case, I hope it was worth it!

[robb3566]

12:48 PM on 01/22/2012

'This Christ who saves many is the Christ Joseph Ratzinger wants (perhaps as his second in command) in his smaller, darker, more ancient church made up of that new "many.'"

Well, no, it's the Christ of the New Testament. If you actually read the Gospels, Matthew and Mark both read 'shed for you and for many...' If you have a problem with that language, take it up with the writers of the bible. Of course it is never a safe assumption that most Catholics actually read the bible...so you're forgiven.

[Orthodox Catholic]

02:10 PM on 01/14/2012

New Mass...not enough time for prayer, reflection, kinda of badda boom, badda bing. People don;t enter church as if entering holy place, but a talkathon with their neighbors. People don;t dress properly, too many leave with HOST not consumed just to get out of parking lot. People don;t take time out to learn about the church the Mass, yet go out of their way to blast the church. Very few times do we get the "send the money", but than again people want heated churches air, parking lot cleared of snow, guess who has to pay for it. Church never makes a BIG deal of 10%. How much does a priest get paid, what about his retirement, insurance? New changes to Mass are so small that it does not warrent your "anti-Pope, anti-Rome comments. Don;t like the church, leave and God will ratify your decision, now and on that last day you can say, "Ops"!

[chiorio]

10:29 AM on 01/07/2012

Regarding the point about never touching the Body of Christ, don't you remember how the woman touched his garment and was healed? She may not have touched him directly, but her faith saved her. I doubt for a minute that he would not have healed her, had she physically touched his person. Also, what about the many children who came to him and he said " Do not hinder the little children".Christ clearly spoke in ways the common folks could understand. That's why he used parables to teach. Jesus was anti-hierarchy which is why he taught the first shall be last and the last shall be first. He hated the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders reminding the world that we are to care for the sick, orphans, widows, and needy. We are to love one another as ourself, and put God first. Also, if the church is to be true to the ancient rituals, then why don't we use Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek? Peter would have spoken those first before latin. If we are Christian, we humbly submit ourselves before the will of God, accepting the salvation He gave us in the birth, death, and resurrection of His son Jesus. And we live that faith out daily admitting we are sinners and serving others according to how God has gifted us to do so.At the end of the day, God knows your heart and mind, and to Him is who we ultimately answer.

[picolax]

06:35 AM on 01/04/2012

The main point, which many old school don't seem to get, is this was imposed WITHOUT any consultation. The eucharistic prayer was a beautiful poem that allowed an entry into a "mass" meditation for all, even the easter and christmas catholics, which strangely seemed to help many to reaffirm a faith that was perhaps a wee bit undeveloped. This imposition of new words without good reason will drive many away and I do recall some guy saying somewhere "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!.

What is needed to be remembered is the church is its people, not some befrocked powerbroker. The pope is the head of the church, yes, but he is NOT infallible, I reckon he has just stuffed up pretty big time.

there was a previous comment about the mass now having the priest with their back to the eucharist. I seem to remember that the spirit of jesus is in us all, which kind of renders any further debate null and void.

[Carol Burt]

07:01 AM on 12/31/2011

Much of the "new" mass translation is not really new at all. I recall saying "and with your spirit" back in the 60s.Also many other of the new words are in the old missal.I have my moms old bible which has these transaltions in the section about the Mass. I thought I may have been mistaken after all these years but it is there in black and white.

[gregory57]

03:52 PM on 12/22/2011

If the language is to be believed, last Sunday the blood of Christ saved everyone. This week, not so much.

Salvation is still available to all. Unfortunately, not all will take make use of the blood that Christ has spilled for us all. Hence, many.

[Mike Maiale]

01:55 AM on 12/11/2011

When you look at the propers of the old mass translation, many of them weren't translations at all... they weren't even on the same subject.

As for the "for many" versus "for all" argument, those who have a problem with that change should take it up with Jesus Christ. I just looked at Matthew 26:28 in nearly every English version of the Bible... they all say "for many," because every single greek text says "for many," because Jesus Christ, himself, said "for many."

[john1513]

01:45 AM on 12/05/2011

"the priest presided with his back toward the congregation"

Is this worse than his back toward God present in the Eucharist; i.e. the point of mass?

"correcting sexist language"

Is it also sexist to say Christ was a man, his 12 disciples were men, God is our father, Mary is our mother?

"If the language is to be believed, last Sunday the blood of Christ saved everyone. This week, not so much."

As much as you'd like to, we cannot change what Christ said or what people choose to do with it. Salvation is offered for all, but not accepted by all. This is common sense.

The reaction to the Mass changes are histerical and further exposes cafeteria-Catholics who hate Catholicism and the Catholic Church. Accuracy is not evil. If you'd like to become your own pope, you can start the 40,001st denomination of Christianity.

[johnnybic]

05:07 PM on 12/04/2011

My friend from our seminary days just sent me this. I think it is the perfect descriptor:

Liturgical Greeting (Monitio) for the First Sunday of Advent, 2011
May your journey,
begun on the commencement of the new liturgical year,
be a peaceful and harmonious
event,
foreshadowing the eternal pilgrimage which we make in this life towards our heavenly home,
knowing full well that the heavenly King is the one who assists us on our journey,
and may your reading of the words “chalice” “consubstantial” and “gibbet” fill you with a renewed spirituality of liturgical transcendence,
knowing that you are assisted by the power of Latin syntax and the approval of
Vatican officials,
thus delivering us closer to masses “ad orientem”,
a foretaste of the heavenly sacrifice renewed each day through the ministrations of validly ordained and orthodox clergy,
working under the guidance of bishops, successors to the apostles and supreme teachers and liturgists in their respective dioceses,
an occasion of renewal in the true understanding of church councils,
which have often been misconstrued,
so that we may be one church gathered in obedience and submission.
Amen.

[murphthesurf3]

07:09 PM on 12/01/2011

Don't know if anyone will read this comment, but I need to make it.

This writer has zeroed in on what is really going on with this translation. It is about the reassertion of power, the neutralizing of Vatican II, the shrinking of the open door and the closing of the windows that Jonh XXIII opened wide.

All one needs do is read the document on liturgy from Vatican II to know what is going on here:

From
CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963   
"The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Not what is happening now.

[AntithiChrist]

09:27 AM on 12/01/2011

Disention in the ranks? Goodness.

You know, Michelle, if this were any other club that upset you so much with recent policy changes, you'd likely use your powers of reason and leave that club.

In the case of this club however there appears to be a large, god-shaped vacuum in you reasoning center, and it's hindering your ability to think clearly.

How'd that happen?

It'll be a long recovery, maybe the rest of your life, but if you kick this disease you'll be free.

You're not a serf.

[OtayPanky]

07:30 AM on 12/01/2011

I may be wrong here, but I'm reading between the lines, and you don't sound like a happy camper to me.

[SpiritV2]

07:23 AM on 12/01/2011

http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2011/11/liturgical-resource-for-celebrants/

[Addison H Hart]

04:37 AM on 12/01/2011

Not that I care one way or the other about the new English version of the Mass, but this statement in the piece is false: "The Second Vatican Council did not merely change the mass from Latin to vernacular in 1963; it rendered the Latin mass (depending upon whom one asks) improper or forbidden entirely."

In reality, Vatican II didn't change the Mass from Latin to the vernacular at all. What came after the Council was the "Novus Ordo" Latin Mass, which was in turn allowed to be translated and celebrated in the vernacular. Only by special permission is the "Novus Ordo" Mass today celebrated in the vernacular, even though it's the norm in most parishes in the English-speaking world. However, the vernacular translation is meant to conform as strictly as possible to the standard of the Latin use.

The 1962 version (approved under Pope John XXIII, the architect of Vatican II) of the Tridentine Latin Mass (the standard since the Council of Trent) is now permitted by Benedict XVI to be used at any priest's discretion, with his Bishop's knowledge, as long as his parish's other usual masses are "Novus Ordo" (Latin or vernacular).

Well, there it is. Having said all that, though, I'm very, very, very doubtful that Jesus used either the Tridentine or "Novus Ordo" at the Last Supper (though he certainly used the vernacular). Personally, I would like to think he used the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; but I'm doubtful of that too.

[ElizabethD]

12:07 PM on 12/01/2011

This is true in fact! Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular is an indult (a special permission). The universal norm is that it is in Latin. It is my understanding that any bishop has the right to restrict the use of the vernacular in the Mass in his diocese. Vatican II said that it would be pastorally useful to have increased permission for the vernacular, but did not issue a blanket permission for it.

Our Lord participates most obediently in all the various forms and languages of the Mass when they are celebrated validly.