I am very happy about, and look forward to the new English translation of the Roman Missal that will begin use in November. However, I have had challenges in explaining to the faithful what the essential problem with the current translation is. When the distinction between “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence” is mentioned, many eyes glaze over or puzzled looks appear. I have tried to take an example of a prayer and show the difference in three columns: Latin, new translation, and current translation (as I do below). But asking people to compare three different columns, one of them in a language unknown to most of them, presents problems too.

But, at the bottom of this post there is a great video that does a wonderful job explaining the difference between the method of “dynamic equivalence” (translating the gist of a prayer, and capturing its basic thoughts), versus “formal equivalence” (translating a prayer in a more literal, word for word way). The video shows the difference with a basic down to earth example and then explains why the difference is important. While it’s geared to teens, adults can benefit greatly from it as well. See what you think.

Example of difference - As Fr. Z. often does to great effect, the opening prayer (collect) for this coming Sunday shows the different approaches of the current translation and the new translation.

LATIN: Deus, qui fidelium mentes unius efficis voluntatis, da nobis id amare, quod praecipis, id desiderare, quod promittis, ut inter mundanas varietates,  ibi nostra fixa sint corda, ubi vera sunt gaudia.

NEW TRANSLATION (formal (word for word) equivalence) O God, who cause the minds of the faith to unite in a single purpose, grant your people to love what you command and to desire what you promise., that amidst the uncertainties of this world, our hearts may be fixed, where true gladness is found.

CURRENT TRANSLATION (dynamic (gist) equivalence). Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world. In our desire for what you promise make us one in mind and heart.

As you can see the current translation (lame duck, as Fr. Z calls it), gets the gist of the Latin prayers. But there are important omissions.

  1. First it proposes that lasting joys can be found in this world, rather than in heaven, which the Latin says.
  2. The current translation rather weakly ask that we will be helped to “seek the values” whereas the Latin more vigorously asks that we may “love what you command.”
  3. The Latin speaks of hearts as being “fixed,” whereas the current translation muddles this into our joys (not our hearts) being “lasting.”
  4. Etc.

It will be seen that the current translation is in much need of help and that the new translation fixes the problems of the old by using a formal equivalence (word for word) translation as opposed to the “dynamic equivalence” (a general summation of the idea) translation currently in use (but not for long)!

Clearly we need more than the “gist of a prayer,” to pray with the universal Church. The new translation will be welcomed by this pastor.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf of course is the master of analyzing these collects and you can see his more expansive treat of this prayer here: 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time


Word for Word [Edge] from Life Teen on Vimeo.

48 Responses

  1. Bender says:

    “It will be seen that the current translation is in much need of help”
    _________________

    Argh. So, the Church has been in error and wrong all these years? If that is the case, what else is the Church wrong about?

    Do we really want to open that door? Really?

    I think not. Rather, just as one should defend and stand by the Church in the new translation, so too should one defend and stand by what the Church did the last 40 years. I, for one, am not going to say that the Church — the bishops, the popes, the Vatican curia, the priests — were all wrong and in liturgical error. I will not dissent against the liturgy of the last 40 years. I will not say that the popes and bishops were acting contrary to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I will leave it to others to say that they know better than did the popes and bishops from the early 70s until today.

    The new translations are different. Period. They may be more in line with the new approach to translation, “formal equivalence” vs. “dynamic equivalence,” but that does not make them objectively better. It does not make them linguistically better. It does not make them better for actual communication of the ideas and realities that the words represent. It only makes them more consistent with the new school of translation. It only makes them different, given the different translation approach.

    It also has the potential to open all sorts of theological questions, since the priority is on slavish word-for-word substitution, rather than doctrinal or theological clarity in changing from the Latin to English.

    Let’s take the above for an example — “O God, who cause the minds of the faith to unite in a single purpose.”

    In causing the minds of the faithful to unite, does that mean that God exercises mind control over people? That He deprives them of the freedom to think for themselves? Because that is what a natural reading of such a translation suggests.

    Such a direct word-for-word translation might be a “better” and “superior” formal equivalence, but it is bad doctrine and theology since God never treats us like mind-controlled robots. Thus, the words cannot mean what the words actually say, but must mean something else. The new English wording is not objectively better, rather, on a doctrinal and theological level, it is, at best, ambiguous and open to misunderstanding.

    This new change in approaches to translation will mean taking time to explain precisely what the new translations mean, it will mean having to provide a secondary translation of the translation, to explain that, for example, “I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof” is not meant to be limited to Jesus entering the physical structures of our personal homes (the direct meaning (“formal equivlence”) of the actual words used), but means for Him enter the entirety of our being, i.e. “I am not worthy to receive you,” and that the change is merely to make it more in line with scripture, even though the following line has been changed from the Gospel quote (healing my servant) to apply to us personally.

    The Church has not been wrong these last 40 years to say “I am not worthy to receive you.” The Church has not been in error. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, does not make such errors, especially for 40 years. It has merely had a different approach, a different emphasis.

    Conversely, the Church is not wrong to implement the new translation. The Church does not make such errors. Rather, it now merely has a different approach, a different emphasis. Neither is better, neither is superior, neither is inferior. To say that the new translation is “better” is like saying that apples make a better apple sauce than do oranges. While true, it is also true that oranges make a better orange juice than do apples.

    • Bender says:

      While I’m at it (and, again, I will defend the new translation just as I will defend the current one), it does seem that some of the new wording involves change merely for the sake of change, without any real improvements in formal equivalence. For example,
      “For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
      he suffered death and was buried,
      and rose again on the third day
      in accordance with the Scriptures.”

      How, exactly, is “rose again on the third day” a more faithful translation than “on the third day, He rose again”? Is there really any difference between “accordance” and “fulfillment”?

      And, going back to the earlier point about theology, etc., “he suffered death” may very well be more strictly word-for-word from the Latin, but it takes away from what Jesus actually endured. He did not merely suffer death, He suffered in and of itself. He both suffered AND died. To say merely “he suffered death” is to ignore all of the Passion leading up to the final moment — the agony in the Garden, the trials, the scourging, the abandonment, the carrying of the Cross.

      Is that an objectively better wording of what we profess to believe?

      • Well, I think the process of translation, has to be understood. It was a very lengthy one involving 1000s of interactions and a number of factors, one of which was to craft a translation that was for the whole of the English speaking world, not just America. Also there were efforts to apply common stylistics features that kept the new translation not only accurate, but smooth and consistent. Hence, I think your image of some people sitting in a room saying, “lets just change this for the sake of changing it,” isn’t really fair. The fact is the whole translation is new from the bottom up. It wasn’t just that the old one was tweaked.There were, as far as I know, some efforts to refer to current, but there were other, over-riding premises too.

        • Philip says:

          Here in Ireland the creed has always stated ‘in accordance with the scriptures’ and so perhaps the change in the American version for this line is so that it is the same as that used by other English Speaking countries.

    • Paradoxically I have to say that your answer, according to me involves some “translation” issues in interpreting English words :-) For example, to say something needs improvement is not necessarily to imply that the current thing is in error or is absolutely bad. “Improvement” usually refers to degree rather than an all or nothing, good vs worthless, right vs wrong.

      Secondly, to say that God “causes” something would seem clearly to be a reference to primary causality, not secondary causality as your response seems to imply. God’s causality (primary causality) is in a mysterious relationship with human freedom which we cannot propose to resolve, but which does not cancel human freedom.

      Thirdly, the word equivalence (as in formal equivalence) does not imply “exactly the same” Rather equivalence means that something is rendered in a way that there is a greater balance between what is said and what is translated. The example you use above about the roof and physical structures is a little off, since the point there is to render the Scriptural text to which it refers more clearly. Since it is a quote from Scripture and intended to allude to that scripture, the “balance” here is render the Latin according to it purpose which was to remind us of that quote, not get into debates about whether we are limiting God to “physical structures” which we clearly are not.

      At any rate, I respect your fundamental point here which is that we do not want to adopt an attitude of sharp hostility toward the last 40 years and the liturgical reform. I think you and I agree on that and have been allies in that when some in liturgical discussions on this blog have been hostile and even hateful toward the new liturgy. So, I do understand your fundamental concern and share it and appreciating you taking up the concern to balance my post and/or the video with that caution.

    • Charlie says:

      Life Teen is a baby of the Opus Dei and is run by them from behind the scenes. They are not conservative BUT modernists.VERY dangerous stuff.

      • What did you think of the video?

        • Charlie says:

          prophetically sad

            • Charlie says:

              Msgr, both Our Holy Mother said at La Salette that the church would be in eclipse, Many prophetic Catholic mystics and blesseds such as Katerina Emmerick, Anna Maria Taglia and Marie Julie Jahenny all talk about this “New Mass”. They do not give any positives at all that Our Lord or Lady see it as holy or good, rather repugnant and very displeasing. Weren’t you taught or aware of this? They spoke of our times.You could not possibly treat as though it is plain milk and has an expiry date….how totally foolish.

              • Oh, now I get it. You hate the new Mass and are doing the “I’m all superior to the magisterium” thing…and even trot out the Blessed Mother and others and then wag your finger at me and others who “weren’t aware.” Well, one thing I know God hates most, and that is pride, He just can’t stand it. And I hope you are aware of that. Try not to be more Catholic than the Pope.

    • George says:

      Bender,
      To say that a translation wasn’t done very well, or even that unfortunate politics or ideologies shaped it for the worse at the time it was made, is not to impugn the infallibility of the Church. Concerning faith and morals, the magisterium is infallible. This does not mean that the bishops, translators, and such as all entirely prudent or that they will make the best decisions at all times concerning how to hand on the faith. The first translation was flawed but this does not mean that the Church has taught error; it only means that the approved translation did not accord very well with the Latin original and so did not transmit quite as clearly what the Church teaches through its liturgy. There were problems with the first edition of the Catechism, hence the re-issuing in second edition form, corrected to better accord with the Latin. There were problems with the Italian translation of the YouCat catechism for World Youth Day and it was reissued. Some of these translation mistakes were unintentional, others were motivated by ideologies that were contrary to Church teaching or that were simply misguided. Whatever happened forty years ago with the translation of the Roman Missal, we can note its deficiencies without thereby “dissenting” from Church teaching or claiming that the Church has erred in its teaching on faith and morals. The only errors 40 years ago were those by a translation committee that did not itself speak with the authority of the magisterium but was instead charged with _translating_ a liturgy promulgated by the magisterium. Their translation was faulty. Fortunately, that error is now being corrected.

  2. Nick Childers says:

    Let’s pray for an end to liturgical abuse. It’ll continue regardless of form or translations of the Mass, so we must pray to and hope in God.

  3. Nguyen Thuong Minh says:

    Epistle 231
    My some thoughts about “the homily” of Msgr. Charles Pope are here below:
    Firstly, in the homily, Msgr. Charles Pope analyzed the difference between the current English translation and the new translation of the Roman Missal.
    Msgr. Charles Pope excerpted a sentence of prayer in Roman Missal in Latin and new translation and current translation in English to analyze difference between two the translations.
    Thus, subject of the homily is that difference between biblical translations in Roman Missal and our attitude.
    Secondly, now permit me to add some matters to relate to subject of the homily hereafter:
    An English book can be translated into Vietnamese language by many translations and every translation can be different.
    Difference between translations is due to degree of understanding of translators.
    Similarly, in Vietnam, Holy Scripture (OT and NT) also has had some Vietnamese translations, and of course every translation is different in details.
    Catholic priests, my masters, said that I can choose to read a certain Vietnamese translation I like.
    But these masters advised me that I should read new Vietnamese translation was translated by group of translators of United Bible Societies and it was approved by Cardinal-Archbishop, Pham Minh Man, and it published by publishing house of Ho Chi Minh City on 1999.
    However, now I like to read Holy Scripture named NIV (New International Version) Study Bible that Father Nguyen Duy Diem gave me in 2003.
    As for me, I believed that Lord’s word in NIV Study Bible is truth.
    Likewise, as for me, General instruction of the Roman Missal of Vatican also is truth.
    You can read Roman Missal further here:
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

    • elcid says:

      Nguyen, why would you follow a Protestant bible translation that will be bias against Catholic teaching as the NIV version does.

      • Nguyen Thuong Minh says:

        Father Joseph Nguyen Duy Diem gave me the NIV Study Bible (New International Version) in 2003. Father Joseph Nguyen Duy Diem, a Vietnamese Catholic Priest of Archdiocese of Ho Chi Minh City, South Vietnam.
        I have not thought that the NIV Study Bible is a Protestant bible translation as you said.

  4. Richard M says:

    Hello Bender,

    No need to fret. Infallibility does not apply to translations.

    The Church can and has made mistakes in its liturgical practices throughout its history.

    To take one example: Objectively, the request to God in the currrent translation that He help us “seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world” is genuinely problematic, because, as Msgr Pope notes, it erroneously sugggests that we are to find lasting joy in this world, rather than the next. One could certainly read it that way, and in fact it is the natural construction. But it is clearly not what the original Latin means.

  5. Philip says:

    That was interesting to watch. I’ll shar eit with my friends and family. However, when the new translation is implemented, I doubt the abuse of language will be extinguished. In my humble opinion, when we still have 4 Eucharistic Prayer options or any other types of options (I’m not talking about options for mass for when 2 saints are commemorated on the same day), there will always be the spirit of “artistic” input by some priest who deems it his responsibility to make the mass more interesting, as though he was on American Idol. I’m not cynical, but realistic. We need less options.

  6. BHG says:

    All language is imperfect by its nature. But I agree with Msgr. Pope: the current translation, in providing the “gist” does a disservice to the language and language, though imperfect, is important. Translators should be invisible–it ought not be their thoughts that come through, but rather the thoughts and tone of the writers even when difficult, muddled, out of date or peculiar. Dynamic equivalence sets this on its ear (no pun intended). If formal equivalence requires more thought and work on our part to think and understand, that’s not a bad thing. At least we begin from a sound perspective of the words themselves, not the thought of a translator who gives us “what the prayer essentially means.” I too look very much forward to the new missal!

  7. Nolan says:

    As I understand it: we are part of a Hierarchical (Priest in charge) Church which is the ‘Bride of Christ.’ As long as we are in a ‘state of Grace’ we are united with The Church/Jesus Christ. To refer to an earlier column by Monsignor Pope, about wives submitting: – even though I’m a man, I’m still a member of the ‘Bride of Christ’ – and I am Obligated to submit to Holy Mother Our Church/Jesus Christ and say, “Your way is the best and only way!”

    The Church has given us a new Roman Missal –Praise God. We are all called to submit to The Church/Jesus Christ from the leader (The Pope) to the least soldier (me). (No intention of false modesty or glibness.)

    I appreciate the use of explanations ‘geared to teens’ as they are easy for me to understand. (I’m no teen; I’m over the hill and quickly sliding down the other side!)

  8. Mark says:

    I appreciate all that has been said here and expect to learn and grow in love of God and His Church through the new translation. I do take expection to the oversimplification the video provides to teens. As a teacher of children from elementary through high school age, I believe telling them that the new translation is “exactly” what the Latin says misleads them. I believe young people are capable of greater nuance and can grasp the concepts Bender gives in his reflections. If, based on the video, they go on to discuss the change to a new translation with others by quoting the video, saying that the new translation is exactly what the Latin says, they are in for trouble.

  9. Mark says:

    “exception”, not “expection” — sorry…

  10. elcid says:

    I’ve always preferred a Catholic formal equivalence bible, so I’m very happy about the new missal, also I think we have to make a distinction between bible translations and the infallible teaching authority of the church, true church teaching does not change just because bible translations do, also I’m sure the early church fathers debated scripture that was not easily translated between the various languages at the time, but in the end the Holy Spirit has the final say.

  11. Cynthia BC says:

    There’s been much ado about updating the translation in English-speaking countries. Are there/were there similar issues elsewhere?

  12. Cassandra says:

    @Bender, et al,

    Praying with the current missal is like saying “Yo, God! Whassup!” instead of “Heavenly Father, from whom all good things come, send forth your Spirit and create us anew.”

    Now if you want to go through your spiritual life with baggy pants and an off-kilter baseball cap rapping to God, that is certainly your perogative. But just like the young punk who will not gain entry to substantial employment because his mode of speaking informs his whole attitude, so too will the current missal afficianos be denied greater graces because the mode of prayer does not breed a reverent spiritual attitude.

    The sensus fidelium yearns for more and finally the Magisterium is answering the poor widow (cf Luke 18:1-8) after many years so she will just go away.

  13. Bethanie Ryan says:

    Without getting into a debate about the translation, I agree. The video is great, through and straight-forward. Thank you for sharing it.

  14. Fr Mike Santangelo says:

    I have a small issue with the video. (And many will say I’m quibbling over nothing.) The video makes the claim that the new translation will be more exact but starts off by claiming Latin was used in the Church for 2000 years. If I recall my early Church history (and it has been awhile since seminary) the earliest liturgies of the Church were in Greek and remained so for the first two hundred years. I am certainly not advocating a return to ancient Greek but if you are going to assert being more exact in translation try to do the same in history.

    @Cassandra Too many biases to deal with. Let me just say this: I have been ordained for 16 years. I have only used the current missal. The Eucharist at the masses I have said is just as much the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ as the Eucharist at a mass that was said using the Latin original To claim, therefor, that those who received the Eucharist at one of the masses I’ve said were “denied greater graces” is to call into question the validity of the Sacrament. That is not for us to do, it is the responsibility of the Magisterim. I have had the privelege of serving with some great senior priests. The stories they have told me about abuses that went on in the past are just as bad as the stories of abuse going on today. As long as hman beings are involved there will be abuse.

    • Yeah I noticed the error about Latin too but just chalked it up to a video that had to get quickly to the point.

      Also, I have had the same experience in talking to older priests.

      I suspect though that Cassandra’s remark could be understood in terms of qualitative grace rather than sacramental grace. For example, I have had wonderful graces in celebrating the mass in various forms that others have not experienced. I don’t mean by this that somehow they got Jesus any less, just that my liturgical experience has been richer.

  15. elcid says:

    UPDATE: just came across the info below so wanted to share it…geez what happen to the jesuits!:

    Twelve Catholic biblical scholars have joined nearly 200 scholars from two dozen Protestant denominations in translating the newly published Common English Bible (CEB). “It’s an honor and a pleasure to be associated with this good project,” said Father Daniel Harrington, SJ, professor at the Boston College School of Theology and Ministry.

    The CEB eschews the word “man” in several passages: Christ is referred to as the “Human One” rather than the “Son of man” (Mt. 10:23), and “the human” replaces “the man” in Genesis 2 (“with the rib taken from the human, the Lord God fashioned a woman and brought her to the human being”). “Happy” replaces “blessed” in the Beatitudes.

  16. Justin Rebowe says:

    Go back to Latin…all this translation is a fraud..protestant-masonic-cabal .

    Only the Roman Missel of Saint Pius V is valid…all else is a fraud…

    • Charlie says:

      God bless you Justin. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Such dreadful confusion and acceptance of anything and everything these days, talk about lost sheep. The church is a mess.It has been since all the fiascos of vatican 2. Has anyone in authority got the courage to just renounce it before it’s too late? Talk about betrayal.
      Geez what is floating around today seems to accomodate all tastes and personalities, it is a horror.

  17. Patt says:

    That was a very well done video. Thank you for making it available. I am looking forward to the more precise translation and I pray the gestures are included (kneeling, genuflections, etc.– and not hand holding nor arms raised during certain prayers). If this works we should be losing some but gaining others and maybe bringing some back. God’s will be done. Appreciate the update!

  18. d.v. andrews says:

    Hi Monsignor Pope,

    Many thanks for the catechesis about the new translation for the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal for English vernacular.

    Along those lines, I’m a bit confused about the lectionary for the next liturgical year, and I can’t seem to find any clear information amid all the NABRE info on the new USCCB site design. I recall that the NABRE is not yet approved for liturgical use. Does that mean that next years lectionary will be comprised of the NAB while the approved New Grail Psalter will be used for the Reponsorial Psalms?

    Also, are their any indications of work on an updated Divine Office given the approval of the New Grail Psalter? If I’m not already too confused here, we may be looking at a year or so with a different translation of the English Divine Office, Lectionary approved for the Liturgy, and USCCB bible distributed for Catechesis in RCIA and Catholic schools?

  19. Gyorgy says:

    Remembering that the Christ brought us simple words for simple minds, and as we’ve become educated beyond our intelligence, we’ve become frought with keeping with social agendas around the world. I have faith that we will see our need not to have a milstone placed around our collective necks and be thrown into the sea. Keep it simple (KIS), the means by which the Christ was betrayed.

  20. Diane Korzeniewski says:

    Slight imperfections aside, I think the video was well done to drive home the point between dynamic and formal equivalence. Pretty creative.

    Anyone who is still debating the translations themselves needs to realize that, if I recall, some 95% or so of the US bishops voted in favor of it, and the Holy See has approved what we have coming. Now is the time to practice docility and humility since we do not get to vote!

    When you don’t practice that docility and humility to decisions made by those responsible for decision-making you end up among the arm-chair popes who eventually reject the current Mass for any variety of reasons.

    Anyone can submit to authority on those things they like; it takes a truly virtuous and humble Catholic to submit to to those decisions like these concerning the translations.

  21. Joe says:

    O God, who cause the minds of the faith to unite in a single purpose,
    ———–

    Probably, “cause” is a misprint. As God is singular, He causes.

    Probably, “minds of the faithful” is meant. What are the “minds of the faith”?

    Even considering the above issues, the new translation seems to be more interesting, from what I’ve seen of it, but “formal equivalence” taken too far leads to gibberish. That might be happening in the case of this example.

    My preference would be to have the Mass available in Latin at every parish, whether in the New Rite or the extraordinary form, and to keep the old translations for the vernacular mass, at least until people are used to seeing the new translations in the bulletin for a few years. But that’s just my preference, and my preference doesn’t really matter much. The church is trying to feed us and to teach us. So, I’ll just go along, despite my feelings.

    That’s not to say these changes won’t result in a pastoral disaster, like the last time the mass was changed. But I could be wrong.

    The one thing I don’t understand is the resistance to the use of Latin in the mass. It’s not as though ordinary people weren’t going to the mass in Latin for centuries. People today are no less intelligent.

    The other thing I don’t understand is the view that using Latin would make the mass more reverent, or that this new “equivalence” translation will make the mass more reverent. Why should that happen? Were people any more reverent when the mass was in Latin? No – from what the older priests say.

    Also – is reverence the central attitude a parishioner should have to Jesus? There is also friendship, or even gentleness, or love. The emphasis on reverence might be too extreme.

    That said, I live in a place where there are few liturgical irregularities (Pittsburgh). We even have the Sanctus in Latin during the New Mass – not always, but it happens: and this, I hear, is unheard of in many places.

  22. Paul Lippard says:

    In the video, he states that we are doing a literal translation of the original Latin Mass (which he claims is 2000 years old). The Mass was originally in Greek, not Latin, but anyways, he claims that the word “Calix” means “Chalice” not “cup”. Well, if we are going back to the original languages, “Calix” didn’t mean “Chalice” until the late 17th Century. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calix

    For whatever reasons, all references to “cup” have not been changed to “Chalice” in the new translation. Should we expect more changes???

    • Well, life is a little more analog than digital. What I mean is that you are asking a kind of theological and etymological precision that is not to expected in a video directed to young teenagers. It does not pertain to such a video directed at that age group to distinguish between late medieval Latin and Ciceronian Latin, neither to distinguish between cognates and/or the influence that French, Spanish and even German plays how Latin words come into English and are understood. The bottom line remains true for English today that “Chalice” is a better translation of calix. Other Latin words are better translated cup such as pocula. I suspect that we can parse everything, but as I say, life is often more analog rather than digital in precision. The video is not incorrect, its just short and to the point. It is true that the liturgy was originally in Greek, but we are translating Latin here and it is not necessary to give every detail to young people in every talk. It remains true that the Liturgy in the West has been in Latin for a very long time now and that the texts are very ancient. Allow a little shorthand, allow a little analogue.

  23. Chris says:

    Msgr Pope –

    How are we called to respond to the attacks on the new translation. It seems there is so much furor surrounding them. US Catholic’s Brian Cones repeatedly posts his (as you put it) finger wagging at the Magisterium views.

    I am no biblical scholar (I am lax in that I cannot claim to even have read the whole Bible–working on it as I am proudly finishing my last Chapters of the New Testament before moving into the OT…a bit scared). I am definitely no language scholar (definitely left brained).

    But I trust the Church to make the right decisions. Why can’t others put their faith in the institution Christ put his faith in? I wish I knew how to respond other than to pray for them (although powerful, my faith is frequently weak).

    Any guidance on this is greatly appreciated.

    On a separate note, I saw that an Archbishop went on record as his flock is not expected to take communion on their knees. Many people think that he said you can’t, but I am not sure. Maybe you could post on the “right” way to receive communion. The Pope seems to require it on our knees (if we are ever so blessed to receive it from him), so it that the “proper way?” Maybe you could educate us on the various ways and why there is a difference and what the Church expects us to do.

    Thanks for your continued posts. I can’t say I always follow, but I learn all the time and appreciate your electronic way of bringing me closer to Christ.

    • Octavio says:

      Yes, the proper latin way is on our knees. If at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, there is no dout everyone should need before His very one flesh and blood.
      However, kneeling is not madatory because it was said that there were communities that were not taught to do it and they could not be forced to change. Suprisingly, the rest of the world was taught not to kneel instead.

Leave a Reply