New Roman Missal Translation Contains Some Last Minute Changes

I had heard from some to expect a few changes in the new English translation of the Roman Missal, even in the ordinary texts that have been published for some time now. And sure enough I have noticed several of them. Two of them are a bit disappointing to me, I must say.

  1. Misereatur – The “absolution” formula that the priest says after the Confiteor or the Kyrie Litany  in the latest version reads: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins and bring us to everlasting life. But the first draft read: May almighty God have mercy on us and lead us, with our sins forgiven, to eternal life. I preferred the first draft for two reasons. First it better translates the Latin: misereatur nobis omnipotens Deus et, dimissis peccatis nostris, perducat nos ad vitam aeternum (may almighty God have mercy on us and having forgiven our sins, lead us to life eternal). Secondly the first draft better distinguished the absolution formula said at Mass from the absolution in Confession.
  2. Introduction to the Penitential Rite – There is also a slight difference in the introduction to the Penitential Rite but it is very slight: “that we may” becomes “and so”
  3. St. Joseph – In the Roman Canon there has been a change in reference to St. Joseph. The First Draft referenced him as and blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin whereas the latest version simply says, and blessed Joseph her spouse. This too is disappointing since the Latin clearly says, sed et beati Joseph ejusdemVirginis sponsi (the spouse of the same Virgin). It is said that Pope John XXIII insisted on this wording to indicate that she remained a Virgin though married to Joseph.
  4. In primis quae tibi – There is another minor change in the Te Igitur. The first draft said, which we offer you first of all whereas the final draft says which we offer you firstly.

There may be other changes too I just quickly looked and found these. Let me know if you find more. Though I am a bit disappointed, especially in the one about St. Joseph, let me be clear to state that I am very happy to receive this wonderful new translation.

UPDATE: there is a pretty good summary of other changes in table format here:

73 Replies to “New Roman Missal Translation Contains Some Last Minute Changes”

  1. I agree with you on St. Joseph.

    Hail Joseph, man among men.
    Pray for us.

    Russ Miller

  2. I would prefer a more literal translation from the Latin myself. I wonder why the changes were made?

  3. I seem to recall from a litany or other source the wording: “and blessed Joseph, her most chaste spouse.”

    I too, appreciate the deeper meaning of the new wording, especially the Confiteor and the response to the priest “and with your spirit”.

    1. You’re thinking of the Divine praises… “Benedictus sanctus Ioseph, eius castissimus Sponsus” or “Blessed be St Joseph, her most chaste spouse.”

      And the good Msgr has an excellent point about being chaste in marriage.

  4. Fr. Do you know if these changes, and indeed the date of Advent 2011, are particular to the U.S or are for the entire english speaking world?

    1. I am not sure about the date since the Ordinary is already being used in a limited number of places. Given the recent changes to the final draft I suppose that was a bad idea. But anyway I suppose most of the world will use the 2011 date since they too will need to have the time to print and educate.

      1. Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn’t the sign of peace at a different part of Holy Mass rather than right in the middle of the consecration?

  5. In the Roman Canon, the first “and all who are dear to them” was deleted. I’m not knowledgeable enough about Latin to figure out whether “pro se suisque omnibus” refers back to both “quibus” in “pro quibus offerimus” and “qui” in “qui tibi offerunt”., or just the latter The earlier translation applied it to both, and the newer applies it only to the latter. I suspect the phrase applies to both quibus and qui. in which case the earlier translation was more accurate, but more verbose and unwieldy, while the newer translation reads better in English but is a tad less accurate. Is there an argument that “pro se suisque omnibus” only referrs to the qui of “vel qui tibi offerunt?”

    The other changes are to the Creed, “I believe” added in three places, and the final doxology.

  6. Actually, I was thrilled at all the changes made to the draft, especially the additional insertions of “I believe” in the Creed.

    Some of the bits you mention above reminded me of really bad third year Latin translations. The kind of translations, when I produced them at 8 AM in Latin class, caused the prof to yell at me: “You’ve given me all the words, but not the sense!” English syntax and Latin syntax differ. To translate, we can’t just substitute one word for another. It has to make sense in the receptor language. (And be able to be said aloud without stumbling or snickering.)

    So, I am a bit relieved, to tell the truth.

      1. If one had to include every Latin clause, I think I would say,” …and Joseph, spouse of the Virgin…” And leave out “the same” which sounded to me like a legal brief, if not a bad third year translation. But, we all know which Virgin he was married to. I don’t think that clause really adds anything in English, so I can live without it.

        If you HAD to specify which Virgin, you could say “Virgin Mary.” But then you are adding to the text.

        All in all, I think they took the most euphonious route.

  7. One other change I noticed was that, again in the Roman Canon, “fulfilling their vows to you” has become “paying their homage to you”. My reaction is that the earlier version was probably a more precise rendering of “reddunt vota sua”, but the latter is probably a looser but justifiable translation that might be more understandable to people of the present day, who are not used to making “vows” but who might understand the general concept that one can owe “homage” to great persons.

    1. I would beg to differ. Not only are our vows not really vows (because they are broken at a whim) but the term “homage” means rendering fealty, to submit oneself totally to the will of the other. The concept of vows is less foreign as the concept of homage. We are loath to submit totally to any one thing, that would deprive us of our “self-esteem” and our “self-worth”.

      In all reality, both terms are related to each other: you cannot swear homage without giving vows. In both, you lose something of yourself and give it to another. While both are not interchangeable, they both fit here.

      1. I wonder if the Holy See has agreed to include in the Acclamation Mysterium Fidei the one that does not appear in the Revised Roman Missal or the previous Edition but has become the most popular Acclamation. I refer to:

        ‘Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again’. I attempt to ‘substitute’ when I hear this acclamation but if it is now acceptable I will conform

        Frank Swarbrick UK.

          1. #
            Frank Swarbrick says:
            August 23, 2010 at 3:48 pm

            Apologies for bothering you again Msgr. but I added the following rider to my original query:

            Re the ‘Acclamation’ ‘Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again’. We are informed that nothing but nothing, should be added or taken out of the official liturgical texts. If this is the case, should it continue to be used so frequently, or even at all?

            Further to my query on the Acclamation after the Consecration i.e. ‘Christ has died, Christ is Risen….’. If this has not been sanctioned, is it permissible for the priest and laity to continue to use this acclamation without falling into the trap of ad lib celebration.

  8. I don’t understand why it is so difficult to go with the correct translation. After all is said and done, it is better to just say the Mass in Latin. No problems there with translation and since we’ve been listening to the Mass in “incorrect translation” English all these decades, we can all translate it in our heads into our own Englsih version. Everyone, including the bishops, can be happy. Yes the last statement is a slap at some bishops who think we are not smart enough to know what some “big words” mean when translated from Latin to English.

  9. Now can we get rid of the horrible 1970’s hymnals?

    If you ever visit an Episcopalian church, they have a red hymnal with amazing music dating back 300 years.
    I have often wondered why Catholic church music is so blah?

    Anyway, the change to a more accurate liturgy is beautiful. Perhaps it will inspire more beauty in our arts as well.

    Vatican two even mentions our musical arts as being primary among all Catholic art traditions.
    So where has all that music gone? Thumbing thru the typical hymnal, it is hard to find anything written before 1968.


    1. I agree that one of the great mis-steps of introducing English into the Liturgy that we did not learn more from those who had been using it for almost 400 years. THe English and German hymnals are materpieces waiting to be discovered by Catholic Congregations. Straight-forward Metrical hymns in fine English are available in abundance if we would but discover and use them.

      1. Speaking for my section of Chicago, a wealth of wonderful hymnody is available in about six or seven parishes around here. But, we are very spoiled. And beyond that, it is a wasteland. (Not just German and English hymnody, but also chant, polyphony and the rest of ‘treasure.’)

        It is quite possible, but you have to invest a lot of money in a good organist/ music director and singers who can sing the good stuff well.

        If one relies on the person who learned five guitar chords in college and now donates his/her time (not disparaging the gift of time and talent, just the idea that this as far as the parish is willing to invest in the music), then one is going to hear the banal stuff.

  10. I believe the people that set up the music liturgy are taking a hard line to prevent their
    “sacred” 1970s music from being eliminated.. mostly because they know how to play it all.
    If they go back to the normal Mass music they will have to learn a whole lot of “new” songs.
    Read too many articles on the choir masters and organists that just do NOT want to go back
    to the older music that actually made sense.. the stuff they play at Mass is so darn boring even
    the congregation isn’t joining in song anymore they let the organist and the 2 who are with her
    sing to their hearts content.
    Personally I would love to see the Mass without music on Sundays again(at least the early Mass)
    and only add when there was a special occasion. I have it printed in my funeral arrangements
    there will be NO MUSIC! thiings move along and your not so darn distracted.
    Dominus vobiscum, et cum spiri tuto!
    thank God the words are back in their rightful place. Amen.

    1. Well, people are invested in the familiar, I think that’s just part of human nature. Mass without Music is not really a very well attested sense of liturgy. The ideal form is sung mass. This is a very ancient concept and was really only lost in certain parts of the world since the 16th century.

  11. But we were not encouraged to use English in our hymnody by Vatican II; we were enjoined to use Gregorian chant by the council. That few were adhering to that norm brought about a need for English (and other language) hymnody (of which we already had no small amount of worthy hymns), which could have been enriched by these other sources, but had we followed directions we should not have lost our musical way.

    1. Well, OK, but to be fair, in permitting English the floodgates opened. It might not have been so bad had we opened to something better than Kumbya and Sons of God. That chant and sacred polyphony and latin should not have been sdiscarded is surely true.

      1. Chant, sacred polyphony, Latin, and other characteristics of European music are wonderful. I think part of the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council was about opening up to the entirety of the human experience beyond what had been a distinctively white, Euro-centric approach to the (“Catholic”) Faith. “Kumbya” may seem hokey now, but represented an attempt to incorporate African American music and spirituality into our liturgical practice–which I think was an honorable and worthwhile endeavor in light of centuries of our complicity in enslavement, genocide, and cultural robbery of Africans as well as other non-European cultures. Again, nothing against European music, but saying ONLY European music sounds awfully pretentious and exclusivist at the expense of the Gospel.

  12. I can understand that rendering the exact meaning of the Latin is important, and it is, but it is never possible to translate word for word as the structures of the languages are so different. The English has to flow, and the point is to convey the meaning and also the spirit of the prayers accurately; the new translation has got to be better than the one we have now. I heartily agree that we should go back to the treasure of our old hymns and abandon the ‘liturgical nursery rhymes’ (as a friend of mine calls modern hymns!) that are in favour at the moment. There is good new music out there. Last month I was privileged to hear a recently composed Mass for the new translation which I hope we will be singing in our churches next year.

  13. I too am disappointed in the revision/reversion of the “absolution” at the end of the Penitential Act.

    “May almighty God have mercy on us and lead us, with our sins forgiven, to eternal life.”

    Here’s the explanation I had prepared for it, which now requires a bit of its own revision!

    First, the new translation is a bit more particular about the use of the words “eternal” and “everlasting.” While the words might appear to be synonyms – they both describe something that lasts forever, that has no end – there is difference between them: that which is everlasting has no end, but that which is eternal has no end and no beginning. So how is the life which the priest prays we may be led into “eternal”? Because it is the life of the Holy Trinity; it is God’s life, which is without beginning or end. While our participation in it has a distinct starting point, the life itself is without beginning.

    Second, why “lead us with our sins forgiven” instead of “forgive us our sins, and bring us”? Consider the following analogy. A ten-year-old boy is playing outside at home, and his mother comes out and tells him, “put away your toys, wash your hands, and get into the car so we can go to grandma’s house.” The boy puts away his toys and washes his hands, but on the way to the car he manages (as only boys his age can) to get his hands dirty again. The boy did as he was told, did he not? Now imagine if his mother had told him, “put away your toys and, with your hands washed clean, get into the car…” While her intention is no different – either way, she expects her son’s hands to be clean when he gets into the car – she has expressed that intention more concretely: the boy’s hands are to be “washed clean” when he enters the car. That is what this absolution of the priest is saying: being forgiven of our sins is a necessity for entering into eternal life – just as having clean hands was a necessity for entering the car for that boy – for “nothing unclean shall enter” the Temple of God in Heaven. (Rev. 21:27)

    Third, why “lead us” instead of “bring us”? The Latin perducere means “to lead or guide.” It is one thing to bring a person somewhere, but quite another to lead him there. God leads us to His divine life, as if holding us by the hand. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, “calls his own sheep by name and leads them out” to pasture. (John 10:3) Jesus leads us, and we follow Him willingly.

  14. I may be rusty in my Latin since it’s been a few years, but I thought “offerentium” translated to “we offer”. I realize the priest is the celebrant representing Jesus Christ, but aren’t the gifts of bread and wine offered by the entire congregation and thus pulling everyone into the entire liturgy?

    1. “we offer” would be “offerimus” would it not? You are qutoing the direct object it would seem. Since I do not have the whole sentence in front of me I am only infering this based on your single world.

  15. As long as they are making changes, why can we not “beseech Blessed Mary ever virgin” in the Confiteor? The current “ask” is a very weak verb. In every Latin/English dictionary I have consulted, the proper translation of precor (Ideo precor Beatam Mariam semper …) is “beg, beseech, pray,” not “ask” (at least, not as the primary translation).

    Is this another example of the shying away from a higher liturgical language –which I thought Rome was correcting.

  16. My response is: why did it take so long for an accurate translation? Many of us have been waiting YEARS for this.

  17. To me there should be no change from original Latin version..
    The respect ,love,honor praise,holy fear,holy reverence worthy of a God and Savior should not be compromised.

  18. For forty-five years, I’ve wondered what is so difficult about the translation of the mass prayers. In my 1962 St. Joseph’s Daily Missal, all the prayers of the mass are printed in Latin on the left page and in English on the right page. The translations, if not exact, are certainly more accurate than much of what the ICEL and others have done since Vat II. Why not use the translations which have served The Church for centuries ? It seems like a bunch of children who suddenly are given the opportunity to transalte and insist that theirs is THE right translation. Reminds me of Matthew 11, 16-17: [16] But whereunto shall I esteem this generation to be like? It is like to children sitting in the market place. [17] Who crying to their companions say: We have piped to you, and you have not danced: we have lamented, and you have not mourned.

  19. The original Latin withstood the test of time.Why the need for change?
    God is the God of Yesterday,today and tomorrow..

  20. The Original Latin with help of Bugnini was changed so not to offend the sensitivity of protestants..
    So our Holy worship was downgraded to a mere meal..
    Our Lord ,so lovingly loved us is with us during the holy mass which the protestants deny..
    Lots of falling away due to that,,
    Remember the Israelites? every time they don’t have the “Arch of the Covenant”,disasters await them..
    Oh! how our precious gift is being experimented on..
    tnx for letting me share..

  21. My family and I were visiting my in-laws in NC this past weekend. At Mass the priest mentioned that the new translation would be coming, and assured parishioners that they’d have plenty of time to get used to the new text.

    me, the Wicked Heretic Lutheran: (nodding knowledgably, having read all about it from Msgr P)
    my husband C, the Faithful Catholic: ??!

    Good thing that SOME of us are paying attention…

  22. The Original Latin with the help of Bugnini was changed so as not to offend the sensitivity of the protestants..
    So our Holy worship was downgraded to a mere meal..
    Our Lord ,so lovingly loved us is with us during the holy mass in which the protestants deny..
    Lots of falling away due to that,,
    Remember the Israelites? every time they don’t have the “Arch of the Covenant”,disasters await them..
    Oh! how our precious gift is being experimented on..
    tnx for letting me share..

  23. Dear Msgr. Pope, what wonderful people you have writing you back and forth and you answering them.
    Especially today’s theme re the translations. How I relate to them all. Like Roger “leave the Latin in the first place” that’s right up my alley. Or Tapestry with the organist and the 2 who are with her. Same where I live.
    A sung Mass with beautiful music is so uplifting. You all made my day today. Let’s just hope that not any more get their fingers into it and louse it up again.

  24. There are the latin chants for the introit and gradual etc. The usual 3 or four hymnn sandwich is not part of the Latin Rite. Let us be honest and say there is something askew in the whole approach to the Sacraments and Liturgy in general. There is a loss weird modern lack of sense that these are handed down across centuries and should not be edited, stitched together or removed by loaded commitees. You are debating the results of when commitees loaded with some “Modern” individuals reshape worship in their own image. The new translation is an improvement but let us be honest…it is not the Mass of the Council in the venacular. Just as the changes and mistranslations you are discussing are forced on us we were all mislead in 1970 by Bugnini!

    1. @ Robert
      Well, look Bugnini was surely a problem but lets be clear the Church does allow hymns and they can be a perfectly good aspect of the Mass when selected well. To me they are surely an improvment over the often difficult to sing folk music. The string meter and easy melodies are perfect for congregational singing. Hymns were being sung in relation to the liturgy long before the Council

  25. Now, if we can bring back the great importance of the priest and his role by
    dismissing all Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, receive on the tongue, move the sign of peace
    so we pay complete attention to Christ’s presense on the altar (after the Consecration),
    and kneel and genuflect in more places—then maybe, the reverence will return.
    Just a thought.

    1. @ Pat
      Yes, your plan for the reform of the reform!? I know many agree with these and many would also fight. Perhaps a more brick by brick approach that the poep ahs started will bring some of this about more organically

  26. I forgot to mention that the altar girls should be released too. Our parish policy does not allow them, and the servers I have instructed for over 20 years said they would quit if girls were allowed.

  27. Re the ‘Acclamation’ ‘Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again’. We are informed that nothing but nothing should be added or taken out of the official

    Further to my query on the Acclamation after the Consecration i.e. ‘Christ has died, Christ is Risen….’. If this has not been sanctioned, is it permissible for the priest and laity to continue to use this acclamation without falling into the trap of ad lib celebration.

  28. I’m coming in late to this conversation, but I wanted to comment on the phrase “dimissis peccatis nostris”. This seems to be an “ablative absolute,” meaning a phrase that describes an action completed which precedes another event (or something like that!). A certain Capuchin under whom I studied Latin in Rome, did not like using the word “with” in translating an ablative absolute. A good translation could also use the preposition “after”. He actually preferred no preposition at all. This could have the phrase be simply translated “our sins being (or having been) forgiven”. I agree with Jeffrey Pinyan, that the change better reflects that fact that the forgiveness of sins is a precondition to being led, ultimately, into eternal life. While the effects of and attachments to sin will be purged in purgatory, sins can only be forgiven in this life. In this light, I prefer the ablative absolute being translated as such.

  29. then maybe, the reverence will return

    Reverence is found in the heart. And it is not present when the heart is instead complaining about all the things we don’t like about the Mass.

    The Pharisees had spectacular and beautiful prayers. And they counted for little because they were empty inside.

    1. IMHO:The difference is that the Pharisee was all me,me,me,me,me. Besides Jesus went on more about the religious’ tassels and regalia than anything else. I hope for a good translation so that people will learn to appreciate the Sacrifice of the Mass-that they will understand that something sacred is going on. At present the translation has been spoilt for me after comparing the English with the Latin and consequently i notice the disrespect that poor register,poor music and poor example from our priests can foster in a community.

  30. In my humble opinion the pre Vatican II translations are still the best, and we should stil be using them, especially for the Order of the Mass. ICEL was and is an exercise in futility. While the new translations may be better than those of the past 40 or so years, at this point I really do not care. The celebrant gives his part in the vernacular, and i respond in Latin as is my right. For some of the more important prayers (Gloria, Credo, Pater Noster) the Latin has never changed. So very offensive in the new translation is the continued use of politically correct terminology. “Et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis” still translates to “And on earth peace to men of good will.” as it always has.

  31. Msgr Pole is from the Archdiocese of Washington, USA not the Archdiocese of Westminster, UK.

  32. “ICEL was and is an exercise in futility” ICEL deceived us and twisted our worship. This is a form of spiritual abuse that twisted the sense and doctrinal content of translations. It was a maniplation of those who used these texts.

  33. I agree with you, Msgr., about most of these changes, but I cannot deplore the elimination of that eminently awkward English phrase, “Spouse of the same Virgin.” I do not like the replacement, since it is missing that emphasis that Bl. John insisted on, but I think that there are better ways to say it. “Blessed Joseph, the Virgin’s spouse,” for example. Even, “Blessed Joseph, said Virgin’s spouse”, which remains awkward, but preserves both the “eiusdem Virginis”, while presenting a phrase with an authentically English feel.

  34. One of the main concerns of the latin mass communities is that the consecration has been changed from “for you and for many” to ” for you and for all man” and that no changes were allowed by cannon law

  35. I sometimes wonder what is the whole point of this exercise if we are receiving yet another watered down version…I’m starting to think that offering the Novus Ordo in Latin is going to be far easier! OR yet another petition to ask to keep the changes that are good as they are. Any thoughts? Since the Anglicans have had better luck with their translations, why do we not follow their example? I’m a convert to Rome, and she is a funny creature at times!

  36. I am the President and CEO of, and I would like to point out that has recently unveiled a new lesson on our website to help explain the New Translation of the Roman Missal. We have developed a 40-page document outlining the changes in the Liturgy from the perspective of the priest as well as the congregation. The text goes through the changes in the Liturgy over the past 2,000 years to best explain the reasons for the changes in this New Translation.

    Chapter 1: The Source and Summit of the Christian Life
    Chapter 2: A Brief History of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
    Chapter 3: The Need for a New Translation of the Roman Missal
    Chapter 4: What We Will Say (Changes for the Participants)
    Chapter 5: What We Will Hear (Changes for the Celebrant)

    This report is intended for the average Catholic to read and is a great tool for pastors to purchase and share with their congregations, CCD classes, RCIA students, etc, etc.

    Here is a link for more information on the resource:

  37. A couple points:

    1) For those who are paying attention, and who want a more accurate liturgy, just provide one Novus Ordo mass in Latin each Sunday – and see who attends. It might be a great success! This would be a lot less disruptive than changing the translations.

    2) Although I agree that the new English translations are richer and more accurate, I’m afraid this is going to end badly.

    3) Those who come to mass only once or twice a year will not be brought back by this: they will feel more alienated.

    4) I’ve already had a person tell me that “And with your spirit” means with the priest’s ghost! . . .

    5) “For the many” will bring its own misinterpretations, because it will now seem to some as though Christ died not for all. Pro multis would be better translated as “for the multitude” – which is the most accurate, and does not imply that Christ’s death was not great enough of a sacrifice to be for everyone.

    6) At least, the Our Father wasn’t changed. This was pastoral.

    7) Although there were a lot of experts involved in this, the experts get involved in their own little world, their own disputes – and they never see the unintended consequences.

    8) My dad said yesterday that he is disappointed that “we’ve been doing the mass wrong all these years now, and they are only just correcting it ..” He is wondering if it was right to have gone to the “wrong” mass all this time….

    9) The mass is not just for the intellectuals and the knowledgeable. We are not saved by knowing things!

    10) Implementation is already going wrong. The changes are only months away, and there are last minute changes still being made? Again, I think this is going to end badly. I hope I am wrong. Bless all the priests who have a LARGE pastoral duty now to explain what is happening. This is a LARGE task.

  38. Sorry, but I’m afraid my previous post is just a foretaste of the confusion in the laity that is about to descend on the priests.

    For years to come, you poor priests will have to explain the phrase “and with your spirit” to new converts and to reverts, so no one thinks we’re talking about ghosts. My Protestant friends already think that “every” Catholic she knows “believes in ghosts” – and, unfortunately, many Catholics do believe in ghosts . . .

    You are facing an entire generation that is coming into adulthood without adequate catechesis; in depth theological explanations of these changes will not reach them.

    A simple return to Latin, at least one Latin Novus Ordo mass a Sunday, would be so much less confusing. No one is confused by mystery. But weird expressions in English – this is going to confuse and alienate many parishioners.

    A more accurate and beautiful translation – yes, I agree it is. But a pastoral disaster – this could be what the church is facing.

  39. One more, I’m sorry, but there need to be some reality present on this comment thread.

    By a potential pastoral disaster, I mean this:

    1) less people saying the responses

    2) people laughing while saying some of the responses, especially the odd “and with your spirit”

    3) people being even less reverent – because the message is: the church can change its sacred mysteries whenever it wants, and so, these words can’t be that important.

    4) training the people to expect even more changes to the sacred mysteries in the future, which makes them seem less sacred, if they can be changed all the time

    5) less people singing the Holy Holy Holy, for example, because the old English words won’t scan the music, and new music must now be written for this

    6) even worse music, because – despite all the complaints about the music, I’m sorry, but God gives the world only a few Palestrinas… After 30 years or so, we finally have some good mass settings for the Holy Holy Holy, for example. There are talented composers who are doing their best. Well, all those efforts will have to start over. And brand new composers will have to see what they can do. The result probably won’t be so good. You don’t have a treasury of great composers who have tried their hand at the new English responses. So – less singing.

    7) More drop outs of those who come to mass twice a year. They will fail to see the point of the changes, and will feel that the mass can’t be that sacred if it can be so easily changed.

    8) Less trust. Coming right after the loss of trust in the hierarchy due to the handling of sexual predators, now the message is that the church “got the translations wrong” before – and are trying to “correct” those now, but will probably change them again anyway in the future.

    9) More alienation, less church attendance, less donations, more church closings … get ready.

    10) Will be seen by many – correctly or not – as another example of the church’s top-down, master-servant structure (the officials being the masters, and the parishioners being the servants) (“And the leader must be like the servant.”)

    11) Another example of the officials not listening to the laity. The officials are in a vacuum. How can a person even contact their bishop? First, hardly anyone dares: this itself is bad, but it’s due to the atmosphere around the powerful bishops. Second, where are the channels of communication? Officials who love must be in communication with the laity.

    12) Many in the laity, for a long, long time, have been yearning – yearning – for the option to say the mass in Latin, whether the Tridentine Rite or the Mass of Pope Paul – just give us the weekly option, in every parish, to have a mass in Latin. This entirely orthodox desire of the laity has been ignored for – how long? No one is yearning for new English translations. The only ones who seem to be yearning for new English translations are the ones who – really – want the mass in Latin. But no – the church officials who should be our servants will not provide for this entirely orthodox yearning of the laity.

    13) I’m sorry to sound like a prophet, but when I see 40-page instruction booklets explaining the English language changes, and when I see the discussion on this blog, I fear that expectation and hope for a more reverent liturgy is far – far – out of reality. Less responses, less singing, less attendance, more confusion, more alienation, more snickering … and why? Because the leaders are not being the people’s servants in this. Good intentions everywhere, but the answer is so simple: for centuries, ordinary people said the mass in Latin. There should be the option – the option – to attend a mass in Latin every Sunday for every person. And forget changing the English translations. You can use these very excellent English translations alongside the new Latin missals .. and then, later, much later, when people are familiar with them, these English translations in the new Latin missals could be used in the vernacular liturgy.

    14) Pray for priests! Thank you for being a priest. You have a hard way of the cross.

  40. Is this the “last draft” as in, ‘the most recent draft to have been issued’, or, is this the “last draft” as in the official “final draft” with no chance of any changes at least to the changes that have occurred to the changes? That sounded confusing, but I’m actually wondering if some of the reversals to changes have any chance of being reversed back to the first changes in places where the first revision’s intent was to make the translation more true to the Latin meaning?

Comments are closed.