The new Missal has failed

God bless bishop Trautman. Who always spoke painful truths to power.

Are we /really/ at the point where incarnate (as in The Incarnation, one of the most important concepts of all Christian theology) is a word that's just too obscure for the average lay person? Really?

I remember when the new translation came out, my dad, who grew up with the Traditional Latin Mass, being heartened with the change back to "And with your spirit", which accurately reflects "Et cum spiritu tuo". When you translate, you have to be careful not to change what you are translating. Catholics grew up with "And with your spirit" on the English side of the Missals, so why was there any need to make it into a "dynamic equivalent" that was neither dynamic nor equivalent in the first place? The law of prayer is the law of belief. Many of the "translations" of the 1973 missal reflected an ideology that is against what the Latin original said. Changing Jesus words "for many" to "for all", I suspect, was a way to imply universal salvation in the liturgy and to obscure that some will not ultimately be saved.

I don't like the clericalist attitude that as a lay person, I'm not smart enough to understand terms such as consubstantial, incarnate, oblation, conciliation, ineffable, unfeigned, or prevenient. I am opposed to dumbing down the liturgy, instead let's lift people with solid catechesis. Unfortunately, many priests will just make up their own prayers, which impedes my full conscious and active participation with the universal Church. As for the many/all issue, for many is the correct translation of "pro multis", moreover, it is the word used in my Bible. Translating it for all gives the false impression that all will be saved. I have not seen the 1998 translation so I can't comment, but the current translation is a vast improvement over the 1973 one, which was more a paraphrase than a translation.

In answer to arnold robin. What type do you think I am? As I mentioned in my earlier comment, I attend Mass at least twice per week but I remain uncomfortable with the current translation and it jars each time I am in church. I would hope that as a cradle Catholic now approaching my sixtieth year I am entitled to an opinion. I also hope that I continue to be around for much longer than the next five years: I certainly will not be walking away. I continue to live in hope that my prayers for a more charitable discussion becomes possible. Could it be that 'everybody' at your church just prefers not to offer a view alternate to your own as they feel you may judge them?

Why is it that many who have contributed to this thread, often in an antagonistic and less than charitable way, insist on some strange name that hides their identity?
If you have an opinion, state it clearly, but then be honest and own it with your name.
After all, +David Trautman and Gerald O'Collins signed their letters

Thank God for the new translation. We have suffered for long enough under that ridiculous old translation.
Everybody at my church is much happier with this version. It seems it's only a particular 'type' that has a problem with it. A type that, for the most part, wont be around in 5 years anyway.

Thank you, Bishop Trautman!

I am a member of the Church of England we, last year, introduced the Roman Missal. Previously we were using the old version of the missal, which for most did not deviate much from what is in common worship. I agree with the criticisms made

The new translation is far superior to the old.
The faithful prefer it.
We will be heard.
It is here to stay.

I read Bishop Trautman's article with great hope. I could never understand why the English speaking bishops accepted the new translation when other countries did not, including Germany. I grew up with the Latin Mass and was seventeen at the time of Vatican II. Pope John XXIII gave us at this time a wonderful new experience of being church. I don't like the new translation but I will not let it drive me from the Mass I love -I say the old words. My sister-in-law made a very valid point when telling of how she attended Mass with the new words for the first time. Her severely disabled son (now 39) who was able to join in because he had learnt the words from a young age was completely thrown when he heard the people and thought he was wrong. Did our translators give any thought to people such as him? He too has a right to join in. One contributor commented on the fact that the old translation was of Primary reading level, so too is the newspaper, so what does that prove. As an ex Primary teacher, our school Masses were prayed using the Children's Eucharistic Prayers which were beautiful and uplifting in their simplicity -not simple. After all, didn't Christ tell us to become as little children and when He gave us the prayer to pray, it was simply "Our Father..." Many words in the new translation grate and I wonder what have I just prayed! A slavish translation of the Latin is not the answer to a prayerful Mass. I pray for the return of the previous translation.

How sensible to keep the words in the Mass simple.
When we teach students to write a letter we always tell them to remember the word KISS - Keep it simply simple

Further on my comment below (with reference to some of the other comments) - when the new service was introduced I had 3 choices :-
1) continue attending church and continue using the Vatican II wording - as some people have.
2) continue attending church and don't use the new wording - as some people have.
3) discontinue attending church.

I chose the last of these for the following reasons :-
1) I saw 1 & 2 as not being a mature response.
2) I saw 3 as being a mature response and as the only way to stand up to what I saw as an abusive act (as if the church hadn't learnt its lesson from all the sexual abuse that has occurred).
3) a question of "don't feed the trolls".

For me the Mass is a sacred thing. It has value - it reflects Catholic values. And it is not something to be treated lightly.

Those who say "it's nothing - nothing to worry about" are using one of the same arguments that is used for same sex marriage.

I would like to see either the Vatican II Mass being restored or a suitable replacement put in its place.

The bases of the Vatican II Mass and the basis of it being in the vernacular are all well founded in the Bible. The Latin mass actually has less legitimacy. The current service does not have the provenance that the Vatican II Mass has.

The missal hasn't failed; what fails is priests properly following it because they are heretic modernists and the missal was established by Pope Benedict XVI, still our true Pope, acording to a 1909 vision of pope pius x ! google it !!! There's far too many ecclesiastical freemasons infiltrated inside the church, marxist agents like the AA-1025, homosexual agnets, feminist agents, etc, etc....
the missal never failed, what fails is clergy educating the people properly - that's what has been failing.
While ergoglio fools the world with his fake humility and false 'mercy', the catholic universe is further falling into apostasy...

Personally, I enjoy using words that translate the Mass accurately and I far prefer the latest translation. I remember as a child reading a book about the quest for the Holy Grail and was fascinated by the word "chalice". In the first post Vat ll translation, to which these rather ageing priests/Bishops/Cardinals are longing to return, "calix" was translated as cup. That was a huge disappointment. It has now been reinstated as chalice.

I agree with many of these posts that it raises the mind and heart to speak to God in more formal language when worshipping Him in the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is also good to enlarge our vocabulary and not to bring it down to the language of the lowest common denominator.
As a child I managed to learn the Latin Mass and was proud to do so. And what a relief now to have Credo translated correctly: I believe. This is each person's profession of Faith that they take responsibility for; they cannot hide behind the "we" believe.

For Earl3896: you're absolutely right about "we believe" instead of "I believe." If you pray the creed alone, "I believe" makes sense; but in community it's senseless (unless you think Latin a magic language). Tell the authorities that "I believe" in community smacks of dangerous Protestant individualism (!). That might get their attention, though for the wrong reasons.

I am deeply grateful to these two courageous men for speaking out on behalf of all who find the new missal a stumbling block. May their tribe increase.

At our deanery meetings since the introduction of the 2011 revision of the Missal we have constantly had comments wishing that the bishops of England and Wales had been sufficiently courageous to reject the new translation. The young people cannot understand it, the mass congregations do not like it. The clergy find it still very difficult to make sense of many Collects. Thank you Bishop Trautman for voicing our disatisfaction.

Right on! Bishop Trautman's comments should get full distribution to the English-speaking world..

These are the same patronizing plonkers that said that Latin was too "hard" - well it may have been for them but it wasn't for my parents who left school at 14 and were happy to attend mass with a parallel translation should they need it. These are the same PPs who took more than a decade to translate "pro multis" and still didn't get it right - my 11 year old with no Latin and a dictionary did it in under two minutes! If words like "consubstantial" are too "hard" then teach them ! A few sermons should do the job. If they are too hard for some Theology graduates (what do they teach? what do they learn?) then they can benefit with the rest of us. This is no reason to not attend mass. If the real reason is that they do not agree with the underlying theology - that of the Catholic Church - then that is another issue. The Mass should proclaim what we believe (or are expected to believe) and dodgy translations do not help. Hopefully, if we can implement Vatican II and not just its "spirit" then this aging gang which impede it will just shuffle, to heaven of course as the other place doesn't exist for them and certainly not "pro multis".

Prayers are directed to GOD, who understands the words of people, whether technical or simple ...

The mistake of the complainers about the new translation is that they think they are talking to the people. They have forgotten what prayer is!

But Christ said "pro multis" - "for many"...

I spoke recently to a Bishop who is now retired in the UK and asked him how we had been landed with first-rate junk in the new missal. His comment was interesting "We were supine - we were told that this is what Rome wanted and we needed to accept it". This was under the watch of Vincent N who won't allow any discussion on women priests and a bunch of Bishops who are ill-fitted to the job.

As a lifelong member of the Church with almost 80years behind me I have seen a few changes but none so unhelpful as the current changes as proposed, (at least I hope they are only 'proposed'!). If Rome will not listen to the majority view it does not understand the damage it could potentially cause. This could be from 'The Church knows best, so don't interfere' to the distinct possibility that existing and potential church members could be'turned off' by the awkward language. Even more important is how will children receive this language? My guess is that they will quickly loose interest, and vote with their feet - and children are future! I thought 'Simplicity and clarity' was part of Pope Francis's message. Let us hope this filters through to the decision-makers who are threatening to turn the clock back many decades. Simplicity and not arrogance should prevail. Laus Deo Semper.T

It has always bothered me that instead of saying we at the beginning of the Nicene Creed we say I. This creed is the creed of the church not of the individual as source. Also, I is part of we so I is not really excluded. Does anyone else agree with me or see my point.

In God's name ENOUGH of this infantile whining about a translation which, if by no means perfect, is at least something like worthy of divine worship.

I was brought up on Cranmer & the King James Bible. I never found it the slightest problem. Linguistic or theological terms were easily explained, including all those listed as SO difficult for "ordinary people" in this column. The fact is that there is something wrong with the education of a modern Catholic who does not understand such basic concepts.
From childhood I EXPECTED liturgical language to be special, hieratic, solemn, as was the language of the BCP & the AV, and it was in that language, with the offertory & Canon in Latin, that I learned, and learned to love what Pope Benedict dubbed the "Extraordinary Form" of the Roman Rite.

Now, in old age I normally offer Mass in Latin, and due to ill-health I quite happily use the Novus Ordo, but I do occasionally use the present English translation. Yes, there are problems. Some rare expressions are appalling. Anglophone Catholics still have not found another Cranmer, but on the whole, the improvement is vast.

Several contributors ask "what can we (viz. those dissatisfied, as I am, with the present text of the English Mass) do to publicise our grievances?" I would answer: write to your bishop or to other senior Catholic clerics, let them see that dissatisfaction is general & widespread, and that it is not bigoted or faddish. But do so in clear, simple, courteous English. Take the arguments of the other side seriously, don't ridicule them, and deepen your own understanding of the issues involved: what the language of prayer is (or should be), what translation is (and what it isn't), and what weight (if any) should be given to the international character of English, and (separately) to its widespread use in non-native-speaker contexts. Don't assume that all latinists (I am one) are necessarily committed to favouring either worship in Latin (either Tridentine or Novus ordo), or in a heavily latinised English (as in the present version).

If you want BEAUTIFUL reverent liturgy which makes you love God, draws you close to Him, and causes you to long to serve him better, -- then try the Anglican Ordinariate liturgy just ONCE. You may surprize yourself by wanting to return.

It is significant that the A.O., a "new song" of the Holy Spirit (and possibly England's "Second Spring", prophecied by St John Henry Newman) is starting to generate vocations to the priesthood all out of proportion to their present numbers. --surely a mark of the holiness of this new development in the Church.

One of the effects of this liturgy is that it forces the celebrant to leave his "personality" in the sacristy and lose himself "In persona Christi" --and you don't need to know Latin to understand that means. Although I do feel like condescending to explain to Bishop Trautman that it means "being humble" 

Bravo once again, Bishop Trautman! May your wisdom finally prevail!

This has actually caused me to tip in the other direction. The people in the pews are not stupid and a little explanation of "prevenient" from the pulpit would allow them to fully appreciate what is being prayed. As for "consubstantial" who even knows if "one in being" actually conveys in English what was meant by the Greek at Nicea? "Consubstantial" has to be explained, but "one in being" lures one into thinking that it doesn't have to be explained. I would rather have people asking "what does that refer to?" than assuming they need no explanation. This is a massive supernatural revelation we are attempting to put in modern English, maybe it is better to cause us to pause, ask and learn about the stuff for which all human languages are inadequate.

I don't know what "strop off in a huff" means. Is this a dynamic equivalence for something?

Those who refused to attend the most holy sacrifice of the mass because they are displeased with the present translation remind me of children who lack maturity. "If it's not MY way, I'm going to take my marbles and go home!! What absolute rubbish!

The Instruction on Translation of Liturgical Texts issued in 1969 by the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy read as follows:

"The prayer of the Church is always the prayer of some actual community assembled here and now. It is not sufficient that a formula handed down from some other time or region should be translated verbatim, even if accurately, for liturgical use…" (no 20)

Hmm...

I do not agree with those who claim that this is an unimportant issue. Language does matter. Indeed, it is central to how we relate (I speak as a professional translator!). But I also think that some slight 'jarring' with everyday language can be helpful in liturgical contexts. Not instantly understanding can be an opporunity to look at little deeper into the texts we are praying and make them our own. Does anyone instantly 'understand' the language of the Book of Common Prayer, for example? Nevertheless, the our Anglican friends continue to promote its use (admittedly, alongside alternatives). Liturgical language should, in my view, be distinctive.

"By their fruits, shall ye know them". On this principle alone should this poor cuckoo of a translation which has further split the Eucharistic community be consigned to the back of the sacristy cupboard.

If parishes adopted the practice of printing the whole service, as many Anglican churces do, surely the celebrant could raid the 1998 translation whenever his pastoral instincts suggested the approved prayers were unlikely to be understood.....or one could borrow from the far superior language approved for the Ordinariate's Anglican formularies....very few other than the temple police would object to the changes if the result was more edifying.

Come on people; what is the fuss? I have an out of date Missal from 1970. Words are different, but message is the same. Prior to Vat 11 the words were in Latin and adored by many. Most were comfortable with the familiarity whether they understood or were at Mass by Faith or superstition. Not our call, but nattering about different words in English language is non productive. Most can discern the meaning & it is a long way from the misunderstood Latin.

I can't say that I agree much with the idea of absenting oneself from the Lord's Table as a constructive way of dealing with an admittedly awful translation, but I would wholeheartedly and unreservedly endorse Bishop Trautman's words. The current translation is simply not good enough. Yes, a bit of catechesis does help in this - but having just spent most of this week doing catechesis with the range of age groups in the parish, I think we need to be realistic just how much 'catechesis' can achieve. Catechesis is about drawing people into a deeper encounter with the Lord Jesus, not trying to explain a whole lot of archaic words whose presence in the liturgy serves absolutely no purpose. It's time the 1998 translation was dusted off - its Opening Prayers, for example, are a real gem.

The really sad thing to come out of this is not just how bad the new translation is, but that any voice raised against, will be ignored. We ignore the 'sensus fidelium' at our cost.

Bob Hayes - excellent post.

The amount of judgmental, bigoted, stroppy 'Catholics' posting about this issue is depressing.

They are welcome to strop off in a huff.

We are better off without them.

The faithful in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China and many other countries take great personal risks to attend Mass in the face of persecution and even death. Yet, some contributors to this blog discussion boast of boycotting the Holy Mass merely because some of the wording does not appeal to their personal linguistic tastes.

I wonder what our suffering and persecuted sisters and brothers in Christ would make of such self-centred fits of pique?

St Andrew Dung-Lac and Companions - pray for us

St John Fisher - pray for us

This talk about "consubstantial" rather misses the point. I do agree that the new translation is in many places awkward, but the mere fact of using a Latinate word is not a black mark against the missal. Religious language has a need for technical terms - and 'consubstantial' fits that bill. Surely it is a matter of catechesis and proper instruction. The same would apply for an exegesis of 'pro multis' as found in the scripture texts that the missal incorporates: what does it mean for salvation?
And how 'accessible' are such word as "ecumenical" or even "eucharist"? (On Latinate words, just notice how many ordinary people are happy to use the word "deteriorate" instead of "get worse" or "worsen" - and lots of them reduce it to "deteriate". Not to mention "vulnerable".)

Bishop Trautman states categorically that: "“Prevenient grace” is a technical theological term that neither priest nor people understand."

This is indicative of a patronizing attitude that is unfortunately quite common among the clergy. Instead of providing catechesis, they decide that people are too thick to understand anything and so procede to throw out any theological concept that strikes them as difficult. The problem is that this approach is completely subjective. How is the word "God" inherently any easier to understand that the term "prevenient grace"? Bishop Trautman may not realize it, but there is a whole generation of young people out there who have never even heard of the Second Vatican Council. Catechesis is more urgently required than ever. Fortunately, many lay people are now studying theology themselves. Most Catholic universities would have closed décades ago if their sole intake was candidates for the priesthood.

I have never accepted this new translation. I haven't stopped going to mass but always pray with the words from the old missal. The translation doesn't meet criteria of good quality and the way it was introduced, was very abusive, showing "who is in charge". I wilk never use it just because of that.

Reading the words of this man, one cannot but hear "Hi! I am Bishop (don't forget that) Trautman. I used to be the chairman of the US bishop's committee on the Liturgy. My pride was hurt with the introduction of this new missal. I did not support it and therefore it has failed".
"Why the difference?" in relation to the use of the phrase "for many" instead of "for all"
Dear bishop the simple reason is that IT IS THE SAME WORDS THAT OUR DEAR LORD JESUS USED. (please see Matt. 26:28)
You should tell us if you, dear bishop, is more pastoral than our Lord Jesus or if the savior of the world did not know to whom or about what He was talking.
NO, SIR, THE MISSAL HAS NOT FAIL. IT IS THE MISLEADING OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD THAT HAS FAILED. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.

I agree with all of what Katherine has to say. I continue to join in the Eucharistic celebration of the mass substituting one in being for consubstantial and born of instead incarnate etc. The survey of celebrant's find the new translation to be "ungrammatical, unintelligible and unproclaimable". As it it in baseball--- three strikes and the new translation is out. The episcopacy has failed us again. Will they have the humility to throw it out and get it right. We can only hope and pray as we use to pray "for the good of all his church" instead of only " all his holy church". I don't know about you but I may meet the definition of being part of the "holy" church but I am part of all his church-the unholy and the holy. I am pretty sure the guys who brought us the new translation
are part of the unholy church. As to money is there any better way than to make the mass understandable and inclusive of all of us. Maybe this time around we can drop " men" from the creed so it is just "for us' and thus clearly men and women. In one church I go to regularly we say only the Apostle's creed for that and the other incongruities including "consubstantial" and "incarnate".

I totally agree with Bishop Trautman and Fr O'Collins. I find that using the new translation does not feed me spirituality, which is of concern for me as a priest. I have therefore reverted to using the collects and prefaces from the previous translation. The new translation is incomprehensible to young people and children, especially when it comes to school Masses.

The new translation makes me think,  and so I find it enriching.
The old one, with a reading level of a primary student, always had me asking, "What did we  just pray for???"

Recently, In comparing  some of the old and the new, I found the  difference so disappointing in that the old fell flat and shallow and was so terribly unintelligible and trite. Let us go on, and not turn back! It so odd that they want to turn back the clock.

It's far superior to the old translation.
The vast majority of parishioners prefer it.
It's here to stay.
Deal with it.

The sooner these old dinosaurs disappear, the better.

Does the Lord really care about the words we use? If we sing a Gloria with pre2011 words will our Lord turn round and say that the prayer is invalid? He cares what's in our hearts not how clever we are at using incomprehensible words and gobbledygook sentences.

Bishop Donald questions why many bishops and priests use the phrase, '....will be poured out for you and for all', while in the English speaking world we pray 'for many'.

Surely, this is because Jesus himself used 'many' not 'all': 'polloi' not 'pantes': 'pro multis' not 'pro omnibus'. It is hardly the most taxing phrase to translate.

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy declared the following :

- the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites
- Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
-In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office.
-The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

I presume +Trautman, being so keen to follow what was agreed at an Ecumenical Council, follows all of these rigidly?

Unfortunately in this country, our Bishops seem to have rejected Vatican II as I hardly ever, for example, see Latin in use.

I stopped going to church because of the new service - when it was introduced at Advent 2011. I stopped particularly because it attacked my Catholic values - particularly those of community by replacing the greeting with the collect. I also stopped because of the way it was introduced (which I saw as abusive) and because it looked like the biggest trolling act of vandalism in history. The new service is ugly and is badly worded.

I continue to read my Vatican II missal every Sunday so haven't stopped celebrating the Vatican II Mass, but, of course, it's not as good as going to a Vatican II Mass in Church.

How do we get the Bishops in England and Wales to listen to us? I attend Mass two to three times per week but I still remain silent when certain words and phrases are to be said. And even though I am educated to degree level there are parts of the Mass where I just don't understand the words used. I mentioned to my own Bishop that I remain unhappy with the new translation, he said that it would cost too much money to change things now. I would despair except that I hope my prayers will be answered and those that need to see will have their eyes opened.
But I say again, what does a member of the laity have to do to be heard? Do we need a 38Degrees type petition? Will the Tablet organise one?

Not entirely a venal concern, but a very large sum of money has already been spent on this translation. Are we really going to go down this road again? Surely to God, if I may be allowed that expression, there are more serious issues facing the Church. I suppose though publishers here in England like the CTS and Mayhew Macrinnon, will undoubtedly be jumping for joy at the thought of another shed load of cash coming their way.

Consubstantial (that is one in being...) with Bishop Trautman and Fr. O'Collins. I, who have considered myself a faithful daughter of the Church, with a Masters Degree in Theology, reluctantly and with great deliberation stopped attending the Eucharist because of the "new, more authentic" English translation of the Missal. Which is, to be blunt, pure crap. The point is to make the liturgy accessible NOT muddy it up with text that has no relevance to American English speaking congregations. If I cannot pronounce it or need a dictionary to define it then it is not proclaimable.