Sunday II of the Rollout – Comments?

The Second Sunday of Advent is also the Second Sunday of you-know-what. (BTW, someone I know referred to Christ the King this year as the “Last Sunday in Vatican II Time” – how do you suppose he feels about the new missal??)

The entire missal, including all the priests’ proper prayers, is now in use for Catholic English-speakers everywhere (except New Zealand, that is).

Comments on how it went, second time around?

I’m especially interested in the declamation of the celebrant’s proper prayers. At first I thought these would have to be proclaimed slowly and carefully, with pauses at the punctuation to help make clear(er) the convoluted syntax. But now I wonder if that doesn’t just call more attention to the syntax, which is the hardest part in this whole project. Is it better to keep it moving and not break it up? Will worshipers gradually learn to listen in a new way, grasping various words and phrases but not necessarily catching the whole argument? I was put onto this line of thinking by a fellow monk’s comment that it sounds better not to pause at the comma they put after “that.” Here’s an example, from today’s Prayer after Communion – see the third line.

Replenished by the food of spiritual nourishment,
we humbly beseech you, O Lord,
that, through our partaking in this mystery,
you may teach us to judge wisely the things of earth
and hold firm to the things of heaven.
Through Christ our Lord.

How did this and such prayers go?

I’m also interested (for various reasons) in the missal chants. Were they used where you worshiped? How did they work? I’m really interested in the new Preface tone. I think it’s one of the gems of the missal – and I speak as an objective, neutral observer. I’m very fond of the lilt of it. I dearly hope priests don’t find it too difficult or complicated or Baroque (or whatever unfortunate label could stick). If the Preface was sung, tell us how it went.

Be nice, everyone. But do be honest.

awr

Editor

Katharine E. Harmon, Ph.D., edits the blog, Pray Tell: Worship, Wit & Wisdom.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

155 responses to “Sunday II of the Rollout – Comments?”

  1. Sandi Brough

    Debating how long the pause should be after a comma? Tightening one screw on one deck chair. Singing the preface? Yeah, the first-class orchestra kept playing until they plunged to their deaths in the freezing Atlantic, didn’t they?

    Reply
  2. Fr. Kevin Kimtis

    Speaking simply on the Preface tone:
    I could not be happier with it. The prefaces of the the previous translaation often proved rather difficult to sing as the movement of the melody and the emphases of the words did not always coincide very felicitously.
    Even the small matter of the typesetting of the Prefaces (ie. stemless notes) makes chanting them, to my mind, much simpler.
    It seems a great pity that the preface is not sung more often – such a simple and yet greatly enriching chant!

    On a related note (no pun intended), LTP should be commended for their missal commentary and chanting aids. Their book of pointed presidential prayers is a fantastic time- and labor-saver. I can point the missal before Mass so that the sung orations move much more fluidly.

    Reply
    1. Joe O'Leary

      What do you make of John the Baptist “singing” and the ungrammatical use of “to acclaim”?

      Reply
      1. Fr. Kevin Kimtis

        I haven’t the foggiest idea what you are speaking of with reference to John the Baptist “singing.”

        As regards the use of “acclaim,” it would seem a perfectly grammatical use of the verb is taken up in the conclusion to each preface. Indeed, it would seem to elide nicely with the Sanctus – moreso than the previous translation if I might suggest as much.

        I have not been ordained for very long, but in singing the previous translation of the prefaces I have been cut off by organists on several occasions due to the unpredictably and grammatical clumsiness of some of the conclusions. The current translation of the prefaces, especially in their sung form seems to surmount this, and several other problems.

  3. Sean Parker

    Well, I made a promise that I’d go to mass with an open mind on Sunday morning, and I will. In fact, I’ll go there as if it is totally the way I want the mass to be, and see what happens. As I said last Sunday afternoon, I feel like I got a message reminding me that God was still there, and asking me to give it a try. So I will. More on Sunday.

    Reply
  4. Marci Blue

    OK – I don’t understand something and I missed a great deal of the conversation about the new translation BUT I was of the understanding that the priests on this blog KNOW about the way the new translation came about.

    If they know the PROCEDURE was bogus why would they even think about using it in the first place? I mean doesn’t that compound the error? Doesn’t that make them complicit with Ratzinger?

    Reply
    1. Sean Parker

      Marci,

      There doesn’t appear to be much of a “point of order” mechanism in place in the church hierarchy where priests can point out where they think an error might have been made. Or, at least if there is, it has many layers, and any layer along the way can dismiss it.

      In the meantime, priests have promised to obey the hierarchy. The only option they really have is to leave, which most would never do.

      Reply
      1. Marci Blue

        So then ultimately, Sean, their excuse for doing the WRONG thing will be, “I was just following orders”?

      2. Sean Parker

        Basically. But, let’s not view all of them as malicious. The majority aren’t. Many are trying to help people either accept the transition, or to slowly work to make it aware that people have been hurt. At least I’ve always found most clergy to be at least kind natured.

      3. Joe O'Leary

        This is indeed a naked demonstration of power, which would be the envy of Stalin and Mao. The only option for priests is to leave? Irrational and immoral obedience is now what the priesthood is about? Happily, celebrants are using their common sense.

  5. Jack Feehily

    Responses still mixed. No way of knowing whether some people are intentionally holding on to ’73 responses. No one saying anything about it one way or another while leaving church. I didn’t experience much annoyance this Sunday. Did mention before mass ended that the healing available through communion is not limited to the spiritual as suggested by the words “and my soul shall be healed”.

    I used to do announcements prior to postcommunion prayer. Have taken to praying it at the altar while people remain kneeling in silent prayer. I think it makes more sense than returning to chair for silence, then all stand for prayer, sit for announcements, and stand again for blessing. Since not everything about new translation makes good sense, I think this is an acceptable variance.

    Reply
    1. Sean Whelan

      While this is not about the principal topic, I totally disagree with what you’ve done with the announcements. The Prayer after Communion is the concluding part to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Is adding announcements to the mixture really acceptable? And the altar is not the place to lead this prayer – the chair is. And most importantly, how long are these announcements, that you have the people sit for them?? The missal says clearly, if any, they should be brief. Stress important things, but don’t read the bulletin. Many parishes in our area have moved the announcements prior to the gathering song, as an introduction, welcome and explanation of cry room location, shut of cell phones, etc… and we limit them to 3-4 max. And we don’t repeat week to week.

      Now perhaps everyone shows up late to your church (yet presumably stays after Communion), or no one reads the bulletins, or whatever, but I’d work on fixing these matters before I’d go re-arranging the Mass.

      Reply
      1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        If I read Jack correctly, he has actually begun following the rubrics, more or less. Before he did the announcements before the prayer, whereas now he is do them after, as envisioned by the rubrics. If I recall correctly, doing the prayer after communion from the altar is an allowable option. The only thing that deviates from custom, though not from the actual rubrics, is that the people remain kneeling for the prayer rather than standing.

      2. Sean Whelan

        You’re right, I stand (ha!) corrected. Still don’t believe you should have announcements so long that the people should sit for them.

        I’m not aware of anything that says you may lead the prayer from the altar. It wouldn’t seem to be good practice anyhow.

      3. Jeffrey Pinyan

        GIRM 165. Then, standing at the chair or at the altar and facing the people the priest, with hands joined says, Oremus (Let us pray); then, with hands extended, he recites the prayer after Communion.

      4. Sean Whelan

        Strange. Oh well. Not something I’ve ever seen in practice, and I think it best that way.

      5. Tim English

        Actually- the priest shouldn’t make the pulpit announcements, the lector should. Plus, liturgical matters are NOT for the parish to decide, but rather the diocese. If something is spelled out in your diocesan liturgical rubrics you have to follow those rubrics, and parishes within the diocese as communities of faith are under the control of the larger church in your area, your diocese or archdiocese, and you have no choice- except if there is a valid pastoral reason to seek a diocesan or archdiocesan dispensation for a diocesan rubric, then you you should seek it.

      6. Sean Whelan

        Where on earth does it say that the priest should not do the announcement? I just read the GIRM on the concluding rite and there is NO mention of who is to do it. Where do you come up with this stuff?

  6. Sean Whelan

    It was worse this week than the week before. Almost all said “And also with you” in the beginning. Creed went OK. The next two “And with your spirits” were a hodge-podge and the Lord I am not worthy was a train wreck. The responses and singing – songs they know “by heart” you could say! are very timid. I also sense an overall disapproval towards kneeling during Communion (Our Diocese stood for all of Communion until last week.) Some remained standing which surprised me. Singing took a big dive during this part as well – they just seem to kneel there, looking around, not using the song sheets. I guess some (many?) are praying, but of course that is not what the Communion Procession is about, but we all know that. We’ll see what tomorrow brings, and the Bishop will be here for our first two Masses.

    Reply
    1. Janet Darcy

      Sounds like a lot of coal in the stocking this Christmas….all the way from Wooooster…..compliments of:
      http://www.dancingsantacard.com/?santa=37948

      Reply
      1. Paul Inwood

        Thanks for a great laugh, Janet!

    2. Sean Parker

      Sean,

      Do you mind telling us where you are, at least a general idea (country and/or subdivision)? I find it it interesting that you talk about finding kneeling during communion being strange, because I’ve never done anything but kneel during communion. However, I’ve only ever been to church in the eastern United States and a few times in Canada, and I suspect some places did do things differently.

      Sean P.

      Reply
      1. Sean Whelan

        Diocese of Gaylord Michigan. It amazes me that some are so surprised that places do (did) this. It is up to each Bishop to determine this, and a growing number have. Dioceses like Honolulu have been doing it since the 70’s, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Louisville Kentucky, Bismark South Dakota, Lafayette in Indiana to name just a few. It makes a world of difference.

    3. Tim English

      Standing throughout the Communion Rite is the Rubric for the Cleveland Catholic Diocese and acturally the GIRM says :
      the faithful should kneel from the Sanctus until the Amen unless health prevents your from doing so- and kneel after the Lord’s Prayer unless determined by the DIOCESAN BISHOP.(43) In the Cleveland Catholic Diocese- all stand until the last person has received(unless health prevents you from doing so in which case you are to sit)- and the faithful is encouraged to join music ministry in singing the Communion Hymn while standing at your place. At my parish- we generally sing two commion hymns while Holy “Communion is being distributed.

      Reply
  7. Tim English

    In my parish, we are chanting the responses for the revised translation so that people can’t fall back into bad habits. The only exception to that is “May the peace of the Lord be with you always. ” We have to lead the congregation from the choir section so that people hear the responses. Plus, we have the pew cards to help us. I’ll let you know how the second week goes. Last week for the first week, things went pretty well, other than an occassional “and also with you”. The one thing my pastor stresses is to have patience as it will take awhile for everyone to become adjusted to the new changes.

    Reply
    1. Tim English

      To report how things went this morning- I feel the people in my parish are starting to get it. Although some of the altos jokingly were saying dominus vobiscum, et cum spiritus tuo during the sign of peace. Others of the altos were jokingly saying ‘and with your spirit”.

      Reply
  8. M. Jackson Osborn

    Clearly, this is the translation we should have had right after Vatican II. Then people wouldn’t be judging it against an equivalent instead of the real thing forty years later. They would recognise what a pale imitation they had been delivered from

    Reply
    1. Tim English

      Excellent point and well taken.

      Reply
    2. Graham Wilson

      Couldn’t disagree with you more about how verbose, pretentious and ungainly this creature is compared to the translation given to us by the bishops who were actually at Vatican II.

      Singing the new text is a good way of covering up its kludginess.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Jim Blue

        Very good description, Graham.

      2. Matthew Hazell

        Well, myself and others couldn’t disagree with you more about the translation.

        So where does that leave us? How do we move the debate on given our mutually exclusive opinions? Can it move on? Is there really anything else to be said now other than “I like it”/”I don’t like it”?

        I’m genuinely interested in people’s answers to these questions, in part because I don’t (yet) see any constructive way in which to proceed.

      3. Luke Jensen

        Graham,

        Excellent observation. I have not attended a liturgy celebrated with the new translation, and don’t currently intend to do so in protest of the process that produced it.

        I have, however, seen a few televised/recorded Masses since last weekend, and the texts often didn’t seem as bad as I thought it would. But reading your post made me realize that, at all those liturgies, the prayers had all been chanted. At the liturgies that didn’t seem as flowing and natural, the prayers were spoken.

      4. Karl Liam Saur

        “verbose, pretentious and ungainly ”

        Be careful to avoid pleonasming….

      5. Simon Dodd

        Any verbosity, pretense, and ungainliness is in the text of the novus ordo; all we have done now is translate it accurately. Your beef, Graham, as with many people, isn’t with the translation but the editio typica, which no translator has warrant to fix. Isn’t it ironic? For years, conservatives tried to tell anyone who would listen that the novus ordo was problematic, and now, at long last, forced to hear it as it actually is, it turns out that the modernists agree!

      6. Mary Burke

        Actually, Mr Dodd, you are putting the cart before the horse. You are confusing cause and effect. The Novus Ordo is fine in Latin. The problem is importing the syntax of Latin into English. The problem is not with the original but with such a brutish process of importation.

        Try doing the same think to any of Shakespeare’s sonnets into any second or more language that you may have proficiency in and then start blaming Shakespeare. It’ll get you very far.

      7. Graham Wilson

        Karl Liam Saur :

        Be careful to avoid pleonasming….

        Thanks for the heads-up: I’ll choose my words even more carefully.

        How about prissy, camp and oh-so-faux as stylistic descriptors of the some of the worst of the text? Not too pleonasmic I hope.

      8. Bryon Gordon

        Graham, I agree with you. I have noticed that the presider[s] chants, at least, the preface. He [They] tends to speak the rest of the EP, which is very weighty, convoluted, and stiff. Even today, my wife and sister-in-law were kidding me about “dewfall” at the epiclesis.

    3. Sean Parker

      Unfortunately, in taking 40 years to deliver this translation, it gave people time to learn to think.

      OK, I know, open mind. I haven’t gone to mass yet. It’s only early morning here…….

      Reply
  9. Tim English

    Really, the pause in during the post communion time is used for the purification of the sacred vessels and to allow yourself to reflect on what you just received and it is not appropriate under the GIRM to use that time to make the pulpit announcements. Nor is it appropriate to use the time before Mass to make the pulpit announcements. The purpose of that time is to enter into a spiritual frame of mind to more fully celebrate the liturgy, which is why many times music ministry will sing a prelude. Also in my church, when the revised GIRM was implemented eight almost nine years ago, we implemented a call to silence where as soon as the priests and servers are in place to process, someone goes back and rings two hand bells of different tones to quiet people down, and generally all idle conversation that takes place before Mass ceases and we announce the opening hymn and the procession starts. The best time to make the announcement is after the solemn blessing or the prayer over the people prior to the final blessing. At that point the liturgy is over and you don’t ruin the sanctity of the liturgy if you were to do it earlier in the liturgy.

    Reply
    1. Sean Whelan

      There is absolutely nothing in the documents that say announcements before Mass are a bad thing. In reality, it helps the liturgy, in addition to a few (read 3-4) important activities or notices are made, then general housekeeping – we don’t have cell phones going off and kids screaming with parents not knowing where to take their kids. There is at the end a line that says, “let us now quiet our hearts and minds as we prepare to celebrated the sacred mysteries.” It works very well.

      Reply
      1. M. Jackson Osborn

        Clearly, then, ‘the documents’ do not identify every bad thing.
        Announcements before mass are a Bad Thing, a distraction from prayerful preparation, from the developing sacred quiet, sacred time, sacred space and action which should not ever be interupted by an iota of non-ritual words and acts. No ‘good morning!’, no clever and demeaning remarks, no nothing – just the sacred liturgy, its acts and ritual words.

        If announcements must be made, one might make them following the homily in an unobtrusive manner, or before the final blessing.

        Any non-ritual words or acts inserted into the mass are blemishes on that sacred act and inelluctibly destroy its proper flow and inviolable continuity.

      2. Sean Whelan

        “Any non-ritual words or acts inserted into the mass are blemishes on that sacred act and inelluctibly destroy its proper flow and inviolable continuity.”

        The announcements are made before the Mass starts. However, the documents say when they are to be made, IF they are done DURING Mass, and that’s following the prayer after Communion, NOT after the homily.

      3. Tim English

        nI respectfully disagree wholeheatedly. Our time prior to Mass should be focused solely on preparing our hearts and minds about what we are about to celebrate. Anything that distracts from preparing to quiet our hearts and minds to celebrate the sacred mysteries violates the sanctity of the Holy Mass. And even there are distractions that occur beyond the presider’s control, the job of the faithful is to block out those distractions and only focus on what is going on at the Table of the Lord.

    2. Sean Whelan

      Also, this pause you speak of is not guaranteed by the washing of dishes. The GIRM allows for vessels to be purified after Mass, and I believe there is some talk about that being encouraged in the US. We often purify after Mass. It’s more of a distraction really.

      Reply
      1. Tim English

        Nope- this isn’t controlled by the GIRM- I point to the decree put out in 2006 by the USCCB, “Purification of Sacred Vessels by Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” , And I’m not talking about the washing of the sacred vessels with soap and water. That is done by the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion after Mass. I’m referring to the the purification of the sacred vessels which is a LITURGICAL ACT, the people are instructed to be seated while the purification is taking place, and in the GIRM there are periods of silence and after Holy Communion is one of those times.

      2. Jeffrey Pinyan

        Tim, the purification of the vessels can be done after Mass. The GIRM says this “it is also permitted, especially if there are several vessels to be purified, to leave them suitably covered on a corporal, either at the altar or at the credence table, and to purify them immediately after Mass following the dismissal of the people.” (163)

        Those words might be rendered slightly differently in the newest translation of the GIRM, but the fact remains that the GIRM permits the vessels to be purified after Mass.

      3. Paul Inwood

        And also in GIRM 183 and 279, as it happens.

      4. Sean Whelan

        Can you quote the paragraphs you are talking about? I have never heard about any change of posture from the Communion Procession to the Prayer after Communion. I’d like to see some quotes, please.

    3. Dunstan Harding

      Why can’t the announcements be put in the bulletin, instead of having them delivered during the sermon (it seems makes more sense than at the end of Mass), or after the post communion/ prayer over the people? There is nothing which spoils the period of thanksgiving and a time of reflection before being sent on our way than ending everything on a note as crass as forthcoming bake sales and a change in the time for choir practice,etc.

      Reply
  10. John Gaffney

    Dear Fr. Ruff,
    I have five priests at my parish at which I am Dir. of Liturgy and Music. My priests are a diverse group, both in ethnicity and musical training, from a native of Vietnam, to a native of Mexico and three U.S. natives; from no musical training to somewhat extensive musical training. After 6 hour-long chant workshops with them, they were each able to learn all their Missal chants, including orations, dialogues and preface. For the most part, they all nailed them on the first Sunday of Advent, especially the preface. So to answer your question, with a little training, the preface tone is accessible to anyone, regardless of musical training or ethnicity (it is indeed a gem). Furthermore, I believe this demonstrates that there is really no excuse for any parish or community to not attain the ideal of sung liturgy (it just takes a little work and practice).

    Reply
    1. Simon Dodd

      John, thanks for your service; I hope the congregation appreciates it! 🙂

      Reply
  11. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    Is there a corrected translation of the Mass? Oh, yes, I forgot, we’ve been doing it so long it seems like we’ve always been doing it. Yesterday at our Saturday Vigil Mass, no problems. It’s in our hearts, minds, body and blood as well as soul. Yes, I heard one priest say that for other parishes in the diocese, Christ the King Sunday was the last “spirit of Vatican II” Mass. That priest was right as far as the corrected English goes!

    Reply
    1. Sean Parker

      Corrected?? No, nothing has been corrected.

      Reply
    2. Chris Grady

      Pride comes before a fall.

      Reply
      1. Sean Whelan

        Oh my, I just have to say I enjoy seeing your posts with that regal old gal in all her red finery! Brings joy to my heart!

  12. Louise Hemond-Wilson

    I am taking my father’s advice – my real father – the one who has nurtured me since birth and instilled faith in me by the example of his life. “Respond with what’s natural”, says he about the Mass. So far for me and him, that is saying things like, “And also with you”, etc… I doubt it will ever include the word “consubstantial” (which is such common English that this comment mechanism’s spell checker flags it as a typo, by the way). By the second week of this forced translation’s usage, I am tired of the invented words to support invented theology, but most especially I am tired of the distraction it causes from important things like feeding the poor, caring for the ill and other things Jesus actually did. “Speak Latin” did not number among Jesus’ activities. I would like to say God doesn’t care one iota about the misplaced focus of Pope Benedict and the bishops, and consequently the English-speaking Church. However, I think perhaps God does care that we fixate on things that don’t matter to the neglect of things that do. It is far easier to “worship and adore” than to “follow”. Jesus seemed bigger on following than adoring. And this is why I am expending zero effort learning the new words. My energies are focused trying to better imitate Jesus – the guy who favored caring for people over religious orthodoxy imposed by the religious leaders of his day.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Regarding “consubstantial” — there are many theological words which are essentially transliterations from their original languages. Many of these words are related to the liturgy: epiclesis (needs spell-checking), Eucharist, anaphora, anamnesis (needs spell-checking), etc.

      I think the “transliteration” and “uncommon” arguments about the word “consubstantial” are insufficient, and moreso when applied to “incarnate”.

      I do not think the Catholic theology of the Trinity is “invented”.

      And I think it is possible to be concerned with liturgy praxis and with carrying out works of charity.

      Reply
      1. M. Jackson Osborn

        JP – is right about our ability to be concerned simultaneously with ‘liturgy praxis and with carrying out works of charity’. I have noticed in my 45 years of being a choirmaster and organist how that people can almost be counted upon to bring up the poor and hungry when one brings up needs for the liturgy and its music, just as the disciples objected when precious ointment was poured out on Jesus’ feet. Jesus, on the other hand was pleased, and pointed out the ‘the poor we will always have with us’. These same people never seem to be concerned with the poor when the money and resources in question are being alloted for some pet project of their own.

      2. Louise Hemond-Wilson

        Jeff, as I mentioned in response to your comments in a different blog, it is theoretically possible to balance worship and works. They should inspire each other. However, yesterday I tried chasing down pastoral care (unsuccessfully) for a sick family member who is 4 days in hospital, very ill, entered through ER and admitted to ICU. We are still awaiting any pastoral care at all. So on a day where the priests and lay people of the diocese fumbled around with liturgy cards striving for excellence in worship, my family experienced “Day 4” of pastoral neglect for the sick. This has occurred with other family members and friends. Thus, it is a trend not an isolated incident.

        I do not understand your statement about Trinitarian theology. The “and with your Spirit” statement has invented theology around it. And, to me, it comes very close to Nestorian heresy – dualistic separation between physical and spiritual. Also, why would I only ask the Lord to be with the presence of the Spirit in someone? How can the Spirit be apart from the Lord as a fully integrated Trinity?

        As to consubstantial – this is an invented word and it tampers with another heresy because it would mean “of the same substance or matter”. The Church teaches God is spirit – not matter. Thus it introduces confusion at best.

        Literal translations are what things like Google Translator render. The same family member in the hospital is trying to study for advanced university level French exams this week and reflected how she would have flunked French I if she took a literal approach to translation.

    2. Tim English

      Again-consubstantial means one substance with the Father and it is more natural in the Latin Rite to say or sing “and with your spirit” as that is what the original liturgy had as the response- but remember- in the Trindentine Mass, the faithful were not permitted to respond to the priest’s invocations. That was done either by the altar boys the deacon and subdeacon and the choir or cantor.

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        in the Trindentine Mass, the faithful were not permitted to respond to the priest’s invocations

        Really? The faithful were not permitted? When was that the case?

      2. Samuel J. Howard

        remember- in the Trindentine Mass, the faithful were not permitted to respond to the priest’s invocations. That was done either by the altar boys the deacon and subdeacon and the choir or cantor.

        So St. Pius X was just confused when he wrote that, “Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.”

        Note that he’s not changing the law, but asking for effort to restore the still permitted ancient practice.

      3. Simon Dodd

        Really? Like others, I must have missed that instruction. Indeed, I responded to those invocations today and no one raised their eyebrows.

    3. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Louise, I am very sorry for the lack of pastoral care your family member (and family) are receiving at this time.

      When you wrote “I am tired of the invented words to support invented theology”, I assumed you were saying “consubstantial” was an “invented word” supporting the “invented theology” of the Trinity. I didn’t know you were referring to “And with your spirit” (which doesn’t have any invented words in it).

      As to consubstantial – this is an invented word

      Calling something an “invented word” is not terribly specific. The word “Eucharist” in English is an invented word.

      it would mean “of the same substance or matter”. The Church teaches God is spirit – not matter.

      I’ve never heard the “… or matter” part of your definition. I’ve heard it, and explained it, strictly pertaining to “substance” or “essence”, the “is-ness” or “being-ness” of something.

      Reply
  13. Joe O'Leary

    No fuss from the Nigerian-Filipino-Japanese congregation here in Tokyo — they trust the Church. The celebrant was a young Jesuit from Kerala who said the mass edifyingly. The preces were modern ones distributed by a pastoral group in Manila, the Confiteor was replaced by another format, the Creed was the Apostles Creed.

    However hearing them aloud I could not help wincing at the drippy changes: ‘who are before you’ for ‘who stand before you’, ‘graciously grant’ twice in the prayers before Communion, ‘John the Baptist sang’ (instead of ‘was his herald’ (particularly inept as the celebrant had spoken of the Baptist as herald in his homily), and ‘we acclaim: Holy, holy..’, and CHALICE three times, and LIKE THE DEWFALL. Ugh.

    The responses were read aloud over a microphone by one of the congregation, which did not prevent “And Also With You” from being heard, sometimes to the exclusion of its unwieldy replacement.

    Reply
  14. Paul Wharton

    I used the Eucharistic Prayer for Various Needs and Occasions in both parishes Saturday and found I preferred the new translation to the old. In one church, the recitation of the Creed included both the old and the new in their entirety and perhaps three different speeds. It pains me to be so dependent upon the book after nearly thirty years a priest.

    Reply
    1. Sean Whelan

      Out of curiosity, why did you use EP for VNO? The prefaces are not variable and Sundays in Advent have a proper preface.

      Reply
      1. Tim English

        Exactly- and that was the case with the old Sacramentary as well.

  15. Fr. Jim Blue

    Graham nailed the character of the new prayers “verbose, pretentious and ungainly,” which is exactly how I found them.

    I have not seen much discussion here about the horrific conclusion to the prefaces. It appears that the same conclusion is appended to each preface. Talk about overblown!

    Regarding awr’s wonderment about the pacing of the orations I have found that moving through them is least painful – at least it gets them over with.

    I noticed the music for the prefaces and thought it looked very beautiful, surely the work of an outstanding anonymous composer.

    Here we are all forced to use Walker’s “St. Paul” setting. I do like Walker quite a bit, but this setting is trite and banal. I can’t blame any composer for the ugliness of most settings, considering what they had to work with. (Someone must have deigned to grant composers permission to repeat certain phrases for musical purposes.)

    My hope is to move on to Kevin’s “Cabrini” setting forthwith. That’s about the best one I’ve reviewed so far.

    For the EP’s I downloaded the .doc file for the VC2010 texts and used that to doctor them up a bit, correcting for “chalice” and “many” and a few other tweaks. I have the ICEL 1998 in my binder but haven’t utilized it yet. There would be too much flipping back and forth and I’m afraid I’d lose my place.

    Also I found that just using the 1998 for the EP’s creates a disconnect between the tone of the ortations and the anaphoras which would actually make the orations sound WORSE. So, the idea of using the 1998 EP texts does not seem to be workable since the contrast between them and the 2010 pieces would be so jarring.

    Generally speaking these two weeks have left me feeling very much betrayed and realizing that I now have to find something else to care about as I once did liturgy. Otherwise the frustration, betrayal and sense of violation will lead to some kind of emotional imbalance, I am afraid.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Jim Blue

      Just back for breakfast between masses. Wow, I must say the new text is truly grotesque.

      I’ve been thinking about the degree to which the orations are heard by the assembly. It’s possible that they really don’t listen very careful to them anyway. But I’m a true believer in subliminal communication . . . whether they listen to the prayer consciously or not, they will sadly have their influence.

      Reply
    2. Tim English

      Fr.Jim-
      The Mass of St.Paul the Apostle is the setting the Diocese of Cleveland chose to use for diocesan events. Our parish has been using it since late October. I like it, it is easy to sing and people in our parish caught on quickly and they participate. I’m not sure they would participate if we used the ICEL chants.

      Reply
      1. Julie Heath Elliott

        The Mass of St. Paul the Apostle was specifically written for the Paulist parish where Chris Walker is the music director (one of the two Paulist communities where I volunteer/worship) … I agree that it is very easy to learn to sing, and people have picked it up pretty quickly, though I am afraid I don’t think the text flows all that well with the music, especially in the Gloria. (The other community is using David Haas’s newly composed setting, and of the two, I prefer it) …

        Chris Walker wrote several other excellent settings, by the way. He is a busy guy!

    3. Sean Whelan

      You don’t like joining with all the Hosts, Virtues, Dominions, Thrones, Seraphim, Powers, Rulers and Archangels?

      I will say, the final line of EP II’s preface is very nice (and sounds beautiful in the new Mass of Creation) “…we declare your glory as with one voice we acclaim:”

      Reply
      1. Joe O'Leary

        “we acclaim” cannot be used in this way in grammatical English. And the list of the celestial hierarchy belongs to a medieval world not to that of today.

    4. Marci Blue

      “Generally speaking these two weeks have left me feeling very much betrayed and realizing that I now have to find something else to care about as I once did liturgy. Otherwise the frustration, betrayal and sense of violation will lead to some kind of emotional imbalance, I am afraid.”

      I felt the same way about the Bush/Obama wars but you just can’t hide from this stuff nor be complicit in spreading it. “Bad Faith”, as the existentialists call it, is the only sin. You can do something about this – organize with others and do something on a county basis. Look for priests who are willing to roll their own “Mass” – one that honors God and the People of God not one that honors a bogus Pope and obsequious bishops.

      Reply
  16. Claire Mathieu

    Thinking back about this week’s prayers, I was struck by the beginning of Wednesday’s collect: “We humbly implore your majesty, O Lord“.

    I cannot pray that.

    There is no setting I can imagine in which I would say those groveling words and mean them. I can be in the frame of mind to admire the Lord, to be intimidated by him, to love him, and various other attitudes, but to “humbly implore his majesty”? That sentiment is foreign to me. It makes me think of Uriah Heep. What is alien in those texts is not just the syntax but also the sentiments. Even when I meet Him on the Last Day, I will not be saying that and He will not be waiting for me to say that. There’s an offensive lack of dignity in those words. God is not an dictatorial superpower who takes arbitrary decisions and needs to be placated with soothing words.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      I don’t see “humbly implore your majesty, O Lord” in the text of Wednesday’s prayers. I do see the phrase “implore your mercy” in Wednesday’s post-Communion:

      We implore your mercy, Lord,
      that this divine sustenance
      may cleanse us of our faults
      and prepare us for the coming feasts.

      This language, however, is present even in the 1998 translation:

      We implore your mercy, O Lord,
      that the power of these divine mysteries
      may free us from sin
      and prepare us for the approaching feast of Christmas.

      The only place I see the phrase “implore your majesty” in the 2011 translation is on Thursday of the third week of Lent, in the Collect:

      We implore your majesty most humbly, O Lord,
      that, as the feast of our salvation draws ever closer,
      so we may press forward all the more eagerly
      towards the worthy celebration of the Paschal Mystery.

      The 1998 translation rendered the opening line rather differently: “God of majesty, we make this heartfelt prayer…” I think the idea is the same, although worded much more naturally in the 1998 text.

      Reply
    2. Tim English

      You don’t pray that the priest does, but the priest offers the collect on behalf of us all. Remember in the collect, the prayer “collects” the needs the faithful brings to the Table of the Lord, and offers a common prayer on behalf of the people. Remember when the new collect refers to “your majesty” Lord- remember that the Lord became a king on the Feast of the Ascension after Easter- and many times in Scripture, there are references as the Lord being “king’ or “shepherd”, or ?shepherd-king”. Remember the last Sunday of Ordinary Time before the season of Advent is Christ the King Sunday- celebrating Our Lord Jesus Christ King of The Universe. The psalm on Ascension Thursday/Sunday depending on when you celebrate the feast is “God mounts his throne to shouts of Joy, a blare of trumpets for the Lord.” This isn’t an attitude, but a doctrinal truth that is well established in the Chuirch.

      Reply
    3. Claire Mathieu

      Jeffrey, in the publication “Give us this day”, for Wednesday November 30, the Collect, as written (p.49), starts with: “We humbly implore your majesty, O Lord”. So I’m not sure what’s going on.

      Tim, I don’t object to “majesty” by itself, but to the overall effect produced by the accumulation of the words.

      It’s hard to describe if you don’t see it in the same way. I love many scriptural descriptions of God as King. They’re often as joyful and uplifting as a sunny day. I also understand many descriptions of the fear of God. But it seems to me that saying that we are humble is in bad taste. Being humble, that’s good. But claiming humility by saying it: “I am humble”, that sounds contrived to me. As I said earlier, the overall effect is that of trying to use flattery to placate a frightening dictator. I think that there is a culture gap between me and whoever first wrote those words. It’s foreign.

      But I’m probably over-sensitive.

      Reply
      1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Nov 30 was St. Andrew, so the orations weren’t from Wednesday of Week I of Lent. Claire is correct – St. Andrew does have “We humbly implore your majesty.”
        awr

      2. Jeffrey Pinyan

        Oh, I hadn’t thought to check the month and day! I was just going by the day of the week. Sorry for the confusion.

        For those following along, 1998 has:

        God of majesty,
        you called the blessed apostle Andrew
        to preach the gospel and guide your Church.
        Hear our devoted prayers,
        and grant that your people may always know
        the power of his intercession.

        And 2011 has:

        We humbly implore your majesty, O Lord,
        that, just as the blessed Apostle Andrew
        was for your Church a preacher and pastor,
        so he may be for us a constant intercessor before you.

    4. Dunstan Harding

      “That sentiment is foreign to me. It makes me think of Uriah Heep.”

      Very good. I can just picture the obsequious little schemer now.

      Reply
    5. Simon Dodd

      If “[t]here is no setting I can imagine in which I would say those groveling words and mean them,” what is needed is not an adjustment of the text but of your attitude toward God. It can fairly be said that if the fault of preconciliar trends was in placing too much stress on our culpability and unworthiness, the fault of postconciliar trends is to deny them entirely. When you meet Him on the last day, I think it overwhelmingly likely that you will “humbly implore his majesty,” no matter how much you may deny it now.

      Reply
      1. Claire Mathieu

        Consider our role models in the presence of God the Father.

        Jesus called Him “Abba”.
        Elijah covered his face with his mantle in fear, but was not obsequious.
        Moses was not groveling.
        Neither was Abraham.

        In their attitude, there is respect, fear, trembling, love, obedience – but no abject obsequiousness. They kept their dignity even as they recognized God’s power.

  17. John Woelflein

    It went well yesterday, but it looks like we’ll all be reading out of the book for a while.
    At one point, during the “Orate, fratres” response, when we got to the part where we say “for our good, and the good of all his *holy* church,” I heard many people not say the word “holy.” When it was done, I heard someone loudly exclaim, “Oh!” I think that is going through a lot of people’s heads!

    Reply
    1. Joe O'Leary

      It went well… Yes, the poor trusting faithful buy the line that the Church must know what it is doing.

      It went well… Queuing up calmly for the Kool-Aid…

      Reply
  18. Ralph Bremigan

    There’s going be a special assignment in purgatory (something useful and instructive, I hope) for whoever was responsible for translating Eucharistic Prayer I…

    Reply
    1. Sean Whelan

      It’s almost as if they made it purposefully awful so that few priests would ever bother learning it. The previous one was so well done, considering the different arrangement of the prayer. I used to like it and now I hope to never hear the new version.

      Reply
      1. Joe O'Leary

        I am a great fan of the 1973 version of the Roman Canon, and I too believe that if priests had the temerity to use the ghastly new translation and to pronounce it loud and clear — or the sexist EP IV for that matter — the patience of the faithful would be exhausted.

      2. Tim English

        Not so- there were USCCB and diocesan sessions where all the priests were required to attend. Now- I agree- the priests are the ones who are the most affected by it as they have 52 pages of changes and the faithful only have 4 pages of changes to learn. I feel bad for the priests who have been ordained for 30 plus years who used to know the old Sacramentary by heart and now they have to read from the book again- my pastor stopped in during our recent liturgy meeting and said he felt like a newly ordained priest all over again.

    2. Jordan Zarembo

      Ralph Bremigan on December 4, 2011 – 10:24 am

      The Canon was never supposed to be translated. Its literary quality and integrity are evident only in the Latin.

      We tried an idiomatic, “contemporary English” paraphrase of the Roman Canon for more than forty years. The 1967 paraphrase hacked the Canon to pieces in order to present an ancient prayer in a late sixties idiom. Subsequently, most of the the meaning and literary quality was hidden or destroyed. The 2010 translation is quite literal. If the literal translation is stilted, it is because the Canon simply cannot be translated into English or any vernacular without either a disconnected paraphrase or an awkward literalism. Neither the 1973 or 2010 translations do justice to the Canon.

      Pope Benedict would have done well to prohibit the prayer of the Roman Canon in anything but Latin, as was the case during the first instruction of the Concilium. The variety of modern vernacular EPs would adequately cover the restriction of the ancient eucharistic prayer to Latin.

      Not every part of the Mass must be understandable on a colloquial vernacular level. The meaning and theological significance of difficult and theologically “laden” prayers such as the Roman Canon can be explained to the laity through commentary and paraphrases. The 1967 paraphrase is useful for instructional purposes. Only the actual Canon should be said at Mass.

      Reply
  19. Jack Feehily

    I see the temple police are still ready to pounce on even the most benign variances with the official rubrics and texts. It took 300 years following the Council of Trent before the uniform reading of the Roman Missal was being used universally. It is true–very true–that no one should pray or do anything in celebrating the Mass that does not carefully reflect the faith of the church. When the priests and the priestly people begin to more intentionally make the offering of the Mass their own, there are bound to be some things that distinguish how this particular people celebrate this particular Mass.

    I respect those who have a different experience and conviction about just saying the red and doing the black. I am not among those who still think of the Mass mostly from the perspective of what the manualists called ex opere operato. We’ve come a long way since Trent. SC called for and authorized something more than just a correctly read Mass. Just MHO.

    Reply
    1. Tim English

      Remember our parish communities are NOT the Church-rather our dioceses and archdioceses are, and ultimately the Vatican is. Therefore, our pastors really aren’t the pastors of our parishes-our bishops and archbishops are. They guide us(people and clergy) on how to celebrate our faith, and they are guided by the Holy Father who is the supreme pastor for the entire Church. The whole idea of having a common missal is to have a common liturgical experience. Our church is a universal church with one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Since we have common beliefs we also should have a shared liturgical experience with all English speaking Roman Catholics throughout the world. The same is true for Roman Catholics of other language traditions.

      Reply
      1. Joe O'Leary

        uno duce, una voce etc

  20. Jeff Rice

    I’m blessed to have a pastor who agreed to and has learned to sing all his parts. It’s made learning the new responses a lot easier on the people. The singing triggers the new responses well (since they weren’t used to singing much of the Mass before I arrived).

    The first time he and I worked through the preface, I was so excited. I had heard it from the NPM recordings, and sung through it myself, but to hear it sung in our church for the first time was a special moment. Beautiful use of the quilisma on “glory”… I enjoyed explaining to my pastor what that might indicate, and I think his learning the preface has caused him to buy into singing all the parts of the Mass on a regular basis.

    Reply
  21. Ray MacDonald

    Sleepy 9 AM Mass in my daughter’s parish in east Ottawa this week.
    The choir consisted of a cantor and a guy on electric guitar, so needless to say no chanting.
    3-4 Advent hymns, a couple were contemporary. A few more sung parts than I experienced last week, and yes they omitted the Gloria.
    Far fewer people were hanging onto the pew cards than in my parish last week, so “And with your spirit.” was not heard at all. Other spoken responses were pretty muffled.
    The pastor had to suggest “Page 2.” before starting in on the Nicene Creed.
    He’s an African priest whose English is excellent, and he had obviously spent a lot of time practicing as he proclaimed things pretty well.
    I found it interesting how the Archbishop’s instructions about not carrying the lectionary up has not (yet) banned women from the procession. There are still a few eucharistic ministers who are female.
    It gets easier to tune things out as time goes by.

    Reply
  22. Sean Parker

    So, how did mass go this morning?? Well, I went to church and was there approximately 10 minutes before the start of mass. Overall, the participation was not much different than last week. There was no reminder to use the cheat sheets.

    The “And with your spirits” were quiet, but clear. The Gloria was omitted due to Advent. All of the changed areas were just quieter.

    As to my own participation, I forced myself to say each response as if I were acting a role in a play. I said them like I would say the lines, as if they were the natural thing I wanted to say. It did have a good feeling to say everything as we were expected to say them, but at the same time, it still felt like another religion’s liturgy.

    The main difference between last week and now is that I at least felt like God was there again, and that He hadn’t been stolen from me. Whenever I started to think about the change, and if it made me sad, I concentrated on God.

    Will, I go back next week? Maybe. I’ll have to do some internal reflection. Do I think that the new words are worse than the old ones? Absolutely. But it’s still my church and I’ll work with it for now.

    Reply
  23. Ligouri

    On Sundays I travel to Mass by public transport. I had been at a loss as to what to do with the impossible Collect–but as I was praying the breviary, it became clear: use the breviary translation, which elegantly combines the key ideas in what’s a rather pedestrian Latin original.

    In general, the new text is manageable in a parish context, where there are no temple police and where as yet there are no hand missals. Some of the excesses can be toned down without scandal. (For example, ‘strengthen in faith and (your) love’ instead of the vacuous ‘be pleased to confirm in faith and charity’) Where the temple police are around, I probably have to desist for the moment. We use the Apostles’ Creed–introduced with a reminder that we are praying it as one church speaking as ‘I’ with one voice.

    Something of a lift in register was certainly needed–to the extent that people are hearing that, the new text is being well received. But 1998 did that job–without the egregious idiocies that we are now landed with.

    Reply
  24. Tim English

    Only comments with a full name will be approved.

    Jeffrey Pinyan :

    Tim, the purification of the vessels can be done after Mass. The GIRM says this “it is also permitted, especially if there are several vessels to be purified, to leave them suitably covered on a corporal, either at the altar or at the credence table, and to purify them immediately after Mass following the dismissal of the people.” (163)
    Those words might be rendered slightly differently in the newest translation of the GIRM, but the fact remains that the GIRM permits the vessels to be purified after Mass.

    The key word there is several vessels. Our priests and deacons only purifies the vessels used during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the chalice and the the platten that holds the Body of Christ. the other vessels are hand washed by Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and they are brought back to the sacristy while the Rite of Purification is taking place.

    Reply
  25. Brigid Rauch

    The parish I attend is a large suburban one with an unusual (for these days) number of young families. Today was the Youth Mass with the teenage choir. The church was packed, standing room only, possibly because the Confirmation classes were required to attend.

    Since it was the youth choir, the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei were all spoken. The priest chanted the Doxology, but had the Great Amen to himself as apparently the people there didn’t know how to respond without the choir leading.

    People got through the responses with minimal prompting to check the cheat sheet. However, I did hear several people complaining about “consubstantial” after Mass. I think most people will get with the program as a result of peer pressure. However, I suspect that for many, one or more phrases will be setting their teeth on edge for quite a while. For some it will be “and with your spirit”, for others “I believe” etc. That is not a good thing.

    Reply
  26. Claire Mathieu

    How did Mass go this morning? We sang the revised Mass of Creation, and that was fine. I like the “Holy, Holy,…” better than before! People used their pew cards less than last week. During the Creed, about half of them had their cards out; the others were almost silent. There was a distinct drop in decibels for the line with the word “incarnate” again. In the responses, there was a mix of “And also with you” and “And with your spirit”.

    How did it go for me? I said “It is right and just” according to the new translation. I like that better than before! As to the rest, I was hesitant to yield to a bad text and hesitant to defiantly stick to the old text, so, a few days ago, I had an inspiration: using the French is a third way that avoids both pitfalls. So I said most of the responses in French (softly). That works for me.

    This week I had not prepared the orations in advance.

    I listened to the collect. The acoustics are imperfect, so I missed the word “hinder” and was then thrown off. This is what I heard: “Almighty and merciful God, may no earthly undertaking… heavenly wisdom gain us admittance to his company, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.” The “his company, who lives and reigns” left me puzzled.

    I listened to the prayer over the offerings. This is what I heard: “Be pleased, O Lord, with our humble prayers and offerings, and, since we have no merits to plead our cause”. That was enough to start me thinking about what those absent merits might be, etc., so the rest of the prayer was lost on me.

    I wasn’t as attentive to the prayer after communion, so what I heard was just a few words: “… beseech … mystery … Through Christ our Lord.”

    I believe that I pay more attention to the orations than at least 90% of the congregation, yet I get very little out of it.

    Reply
  27. Clay Zambo

    We’re still about 50-50 on the “And with your spirit”s. (Personally, my batting average is much higher this week.) The Creed goes well enough, mostly because the presiders have been inviting us specifically there to use the pew cards.

    We’re singing Janco’s “Angels and Saints” Eucharistic acclamations; the singing really kicks in around the “Hosanna.” They nail the “Amen.” The Mystery of Faith, still not so much, since it goes by so quickly.

    One parishioner stopped by the music area to ask me a question about the new acclamations (which I took as a sign that she was paying at least some attention); as I was chatting with her, another parishioner, a dear friend and someone who takes the liturgy very seriously, came by to say good morning, realized what we were talking about, and said, “Oh, don’t even get me started.”

    As I was heading out of church after the last mass, I said to a family who were packing up, “Have a good week.” They replied, “And with your spirit!”

    Reply
    1. Tim English

      An associate pastor of ours was a former liturgy director for the Diocese of Cleveland did a catechetical session on the new missal the week before the implementation and said that one of his challenges was to not to get the priests from saying “Good morning” as the greeting since it is not a liturgical greeting. And he likened the old congregation response, “and also with you” similar to “good morning’ . “And with your spirit” is more liturgically appropriate and that is what we should have been saying all along when the liturgy was revised during the Second Vatican Council. Making the liturgy more accessible did not mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      Reply
  28. Paul Inwood

    At Mass in an American parish today, the presider was one whose first language is not English. He spoke fluently but with a heavy accent. It struck me towards the end of the Mass that it wouldn’t make any difference which translation he used, since (a) it is hard to understand variable texts when spoken by him (the unchanging ones are OK because you know what they ought to be), and (b) everything he says sounds the same anyway!

    I was also struck with how he introduced a number of minor edits as he went along, including substituting “it” for the second of the three “chalice”s in the institution narrative. I can easily imagine other presiders doing the same thing, either to help flow or (as in several cases this morning) by accident. At the end of the collect prayer, he thrust aside the missal and said the concluding formula from memory — and got it wrong!

    And he joked at the beginning of the homily that he felt as if he had gone back to being a newly-ordained priest…..

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      Went to the last week-end liturgy – priest from the Philippines and deacon from Korea. Given that, folks forgot most of the new responses but it improved by the end because folks did remember that cards were in the pews. Presider did correct after the first – “and also with you”. Music – actually went backwards. Four hymns from GIA Praise and Glory; chant Holy, Acclamation from Proulx; Amen from Mass of Creation. No Gloria, of course.

      Presider chanted nothing; deacon did enunciate the gospel but that requires so much effort that there is no phrasing, volume changes, or inflection. Presider stumbled over the new collects; and incorrectly read some of the EPII as he tried to read. You can see folks stumble over those responses that have changed a lot or do not flow – insert “holy” before church; the institution narrative with chalices and many is very disruptive as I watched folks look up or flinch; as some examples.

      Homily was an abbreviation from one of the online homily resources – except for repeatedly mentioning “desert”; no link or connection to today’s scripture. Neither the music nor the presider made any reference or connection to any of the new translation. Have been cantoring the antiphons but not used in this mass? Pastor had brief comment on the opening collect in the bulletin that referred to the “unused” antiphon.

      Taking a cue from Jack’s Vibrant Parish Life Study – could think of any number of liturgical improvements that have been needed. As folks themselves have pointed out:
      – preaching (no different and no link to new translation)
      – music (replaced some of the better responses with chant – why? barely 50% of the church chanted
      – new words ….required folks to go back to burying heads and reading from cue cards (not exactly good ritual)
      – silence (no change from before)
      – communion procession (no change….missed opportunity to recapture what was intended by SC reform)
      – eucharistic ritual (no change – still using tabernacle hosts; still prolonged elevations at the institution narrative; poor “breaking/pouring” ritual that lacks focus; some EMs continue to share like robots)

      So, by Easter, memorized new words; shifted some of the more robust acclamations to chant while losing participation; skipped addressing most of the prior identified liturgical gaps/needs/improvements – and gained what? Sure don’t see any energy; no anticipation; little to no passion or excitement about the change. Okay, folks can adapt but does it really add anything to our common liturgy?

      Reply
  29. Brigid Rauch

    “Announcements before mass are a Bad Thing, a distraction from prayerful preparation, from the developing sacred quiet, sacred time, sacred space and action which should not ever be interupted by an iota of non-ritual words and acts. No ‘good morning!’, no clever and demeaning remarks, no nothing – just the sacred liturgy, its acts and ritual words.
    If announcements must be made, one might make them following the homily in an unobtrusive manner, or before the final blessing.
    Any non-ritual words or acts inserted into the mass are blemishes on that sacred act and inelluctibly destroy its proper flow and inviolable continuity.”

    Only comments with a full name will be approved.

    This is what I was taught many years ago, but I think we have to ask ourselves just what “sacred” means. I think it is a mistake to restrict our notion of sacred to silent adoration. Last week there was a virtual parade of people to the choir before and after Mass as they came over to speak with a member who is fighting lung cancer. They gave her comfort and assured her of their prayers. Now, it wasn’t formal and it wasn’t aimed at the altar, but I challenge you to tell me that that wasn’t sacred. I really think that if we are so focused on Christ in the sacrament that we ignore Christ in our midst, then we have failed to get the point. It’s not a case of either/or, but of each enriching the other.
    I see your concern for proper flow. If I may, let me offer this secular example. If I want to hear an opera exactly as written, I listen to a CD or watch a film. If I attend an opera, I am engaged with the performers and the rest of the audience. I am quiet during the singing, and I expect others to be as well. However, I also expect the flow to be interrupted by applause after a well done aria. It would be disconcerting if there was no audience response! A Mass where people ignore each other would feel incomplete.

    Reply
  30. Tim English

    Jeffrey Pinyan :

    in the Trindentine Mass, the faithful were not permitted to respond to the priest’s invocations
    Really? The faithful were not permitted? When was that the case?

    Prior to Vatican II- during both a high Mass and a low Mass- study your liturgical history,Jeffrey!

    Reply
    1. Tim English

      And yes, really! That is why the development of the fully conscious and active participation by the faithful that was mentioned in SC was a major liturgical change during the Second Vatican Council. My point- we shouldn’t be quibbling about any changes in the faithful’s responses as it has only been within the last 50 something years that the faithful could fully participate in the liturgy.

      Reply
      1. Sean Whelan

        Well the people who have been alive and participating in these 50 years would do well to hear these wise, pastoral words. It doesn’t matter if it’s 5 months, 5 years, 50 years or 500 years… if the translation is poor, people can quibble all they want.

      2. Michael Podrebarac

        “…as it has only been within the last 50 something years that the faithful could fully participate in the liturgy.”

        You really need to review your liturgical history, Tim. In the first place, both St. Pius X and also Pius XI wanted the responses given by the faithful. And dialogue Masses were permitted before Vatican II. And, secondly, I don’t think too many defenders of the Pian Missal would want you going around saying that full participation in the liturgy before Vatican II was not possible. It was in fact possible, although the Council saw genuine need to call for certain reforms to ensure its greater possibility and an overall renewal in the liturgucal life of the Latin Rite.

    2. Jeffrey Pinyan

      That’s not what Pius X said in “Tra la sollecitudini”, nor Pius XI in “Divini Cultus”. Both wanted the faithful to be heard at Mass!

      Reply
    3. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      Tim,

      The laity have been encouraged to chant the responses at sung Masses at least since Pius X and to say them at low Mass since 1922. Of course, this is to speak only of the post-Tridentine period. Augustine Thompson, in Cities of God, his book on urban religion in Medieval Italy, gives evidence that the laity sang at least some of the responses well into the Middle Ages.

      Reply
      1. Joe O'Leary

        I seem to remember singing responses at high mass long ago — habe-e-emus ad dominu-um… But I have absolutely not memory traces of speaking the responses other than as an altar boy. I think the papal recommendation of that must have remained a dead letter.

      2. RP Burke

        We had dialogue Mass and a school-sung high Mass back in the late 50s-early 60s in Boston, but they were for school-specific Masses only during the week. Sunday Mass was low Mass, every hour on the hour from 7 am to noon, with dead silence on our side of the altar rail, with one exception: the boy choir Mass, which just decorated the action on the altar.

      3. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        I have heard that the dialogue Mass caught on better in the non-English-speaking part of the Church. I don’t know if this is true or why that would be, but that is what I’ve been told.

  31. Terri Miyamoto

    We have four priests, two American, one from Africa and one from India. Three of the four chanted the Preface, and it went well, although one used his own tune, I think maybe from the old missal? Not sure.

    When dialogues were chanted, the people’s responses were more uniformly the new ones. When spoken, the “and with your spirit” often got lost. I don’t think 25% of us got the extra holy in the “May the Lord receive…” Truly, that was one they really could have done without.

    I didn’t hear consubtstantial problems because our priests seem to have pretty much given up on the Nicene Creed. I guess I’ll be learning the Apostles Creed despite myself.

    Most of them said the collect, &tc. pretty quickly, and I mostly didn’t catch them. I knew what they were, since I had looked at them before, but I don’t think anyone was listening.

    Overall there is a noticeable decrease in the volume of the people’s responses, even in ones with no changes, e.g. the responsorial psalm was quieter than normal. We reminded people about the changes and pointed them to the worship aid before Mass but there wasn’t the big lunge to pick them up as there was last week.

    Reply
  32. Jonathan Day

    Mass in the new translation has strengthened my appreciation for the Mass of Paul VI in Latin.

    Reply
  33. Angela Ackley

    We haven’t been treated (?) to the entire new translation yet. We had a conglomeration of new, old, and ad libbed… actually not bad and quite palatable taken together. The worst part is the dis-unity of the Assembly response. There are some just refusing to say the new words. I think it will remain this way for quite some time.

    Reply
    1. Tim English

      You should have been treated to the entire new translation as the USCCB decreed it be fully implemented on the First Sunday of Advent. Other English speaking territories have done the same thing. If your parish made this decision on their own, they were wrong to do so and if your diocesan bishop made this decision he was equally wrong as ALL English speaking Catholics should be praying the full translation of the New Missal.

      Reply
      1. Michael Podrebarac

        “ALL English speaking Catholics [sic]” haven’t implemented it yet. New Zealand has yet to implement the full Missal. And there are PLENTY of English-speaking Catholics who do not belong to the Latin Rite. You really should be more careful with your facts, Tim, before you post so many times. I say this with fraternal affection. Your record on the current topic at hand is rather dubious.

  34. Linda reid

    As many have already said, things were even more frustrating and confusing this morning. We do not have missalettes, so our folks are not used to following a text for the Mass. Therefore, they keep laying down the cards. But, by the time they pick them up again, they have missed the response.
    The worst responses are the sign of peace and the one at the gospel. We have just finished singing the alleluia and no one has the card in hand.
    On the other hand, because the advent music is very familiar, the singing has stayed strong. They are almost relieved to get to the music so they can do something they know!!!
    Personally, I find the whole “feel” of the texts to be clunky, convoluted and rather fake sounding. The repetition of phrases like “graciously grant”, “we pray” and “humbly beseech” and “chalice” is truly annoying to my ears.

    Reply
  35. Sandi Brough

    Terri Miyamoto :

    I don’t think 25% of us got the extra holy in the “May the Lord receive…” Truly, that was one they really could have done without.

    Would have made it a lot more accurate, too.

    Reply
  36. Sean Whelan

    Tim English :

    nI respectfully disagree wholeheatedly. Our time prior to Mass should be focused solely on preparing our hearts and minds about what we are about to celebrate. Anything that distracts from preparing to quiet our hearts and minds to celebrate the sacred mysteries violates the sanctity of the Holy Mass. And even there are distractions that occur beyond the presider’s control, the job of the faithful is to block out those distractions and only focus on what is going on at the Table of the Lord.

    Well go ahead and disagree, but there is nothing that forbids it. It works quite well in our parish and in many parishes in the area.

    Reply
  37. Sean Whelan

    Simon Dodd :

    Any verbosity, pretense, and ungainliness is in the text of the novus ordo; all we have done now is translate it accurately. Your beef, Graham, as with many people, isn’t with the translation but the editio typica, which no translator has warrant to fix. Isn’t it ironic? For years, conservatives tried to tell anyone who would listen that the novus ordo was problematic, and now, at long last, forced to hear it as it actually is, it turns out that the modernists agree!

    Oh I do love hearing this tired, beaten-up, false talking point that this new Missal is correcting mistakes and more accurate than it’s predecessor. In using the PAPAL document on translations, RM2 was correctly translated. Using whatever one can call LA, RM3 was translated poorly.

    I don’t know what “modernists” are jumping for joy over RM3, as you imply, but I would totally content if I never had to hear an utterance from RM3 again.

    Reply
    1. Tim English

      May I recommend two excellent books published by Liturgical Press that suggest otherwise?
      The Genius of the Roman Rite: On the Reception and Implementation of the New Missal by Keith F.Pecklers, S.J. and The General Instruction of the Roman Missal 1969-2002 A Commentary Dennis C. Somolarski, S.J. It’s important we have a good historical perspective of where we’ve been before we criticize where we are going.

      Reply
      1. Sean Whelan

        Lol! I hate to engage in this kind of back and forth, but after reading through your comments, I dare say you need to do the brushing up on things liturgical. And as an FYI, I have read both of those books.

  38. Mary Burke

    At the Preface I heard “Dominions” instead of the “Dominations” I had learned at school. I wondered whether this was a new legion of angels made up of ex Vatican officials.

    Reply
  39. Ligouri

    I travel to a Sunday mass at which I preside by public transport. I prayed the office on the way–and found that the translation of the collect there far superior to either 1998 or 2010. As the temple police don’t seem to be watching, I tacitly substituted the breviary translation. Some formulations are just crazy–the competent presider, if it can be done without confusion or scandal, should just change them. The general raising of tone is probably an improvement–though 1998 basically got it right whereas the Vox Clara text is over the top.

    The people are a bit better at ‘and with your spirit’.

    Reply
  40. Joe O'Leary

    “the competent presider, if it can be done without confusion or scandal, should just change them.”

    Nicely said.

    Reply
  41. Ellen Joyce

    Our pastor has a great voice and did a lovely job with that anonymous Preface. The rest of us are limping along and I will admit that I am not trying very hard. I am *quite* sure that this will all become instinctive in a matter of months if not weeks, and I am not going to expend extra brain cells trying to be the perfect responder in the meantime. God knows what I mean and that I will catch up eventually.

    Reply
  42. Tim English

    Sean Whelan :

    Can you quote the paragraphs you are talking about? I have never heard about any change of posture from the Communion Procession to the Prayer after Communion. I’d like to see some quotes, please.

    Only comments with a full name will be approved.
    Read GIRM 72-89 to answer your question.

    Reply
    1. Sean Whelan

      Well I looked, and there is no talk about a change in posture at the Prayer after Communion.

      Reply
  43. Dunstan Harding

    Joe O’Leary :

    I am a great fan of the 1973 version of the Roman Canon, and I too believe that if priests had the temerity to use the ghastly new translation and to pronounce it loud and clear — or the sexist EP IV for that matter — the patience of the faithful would be exhausted.

    Only comments with a full name will be approved.

    Our pastor used the 1973 Roman canon today, but chanted everything from the Hanc igitur to the end of the Communicantes in Latin. What preceded this segment of the canon and followed it was said silently, but when he got to the Great Doxology it was chanted in latin as well. There was, as last week, an incensation of the elevated host and the cup. The Kyrie was sung in Greek, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei were sung in Latin.

    From what I can gather, none of our usual suspects from the parish liturgy police force seemed to object to the few substitutions made using language from the 1973 missal. I would say a good balance using a few traditional TLM elements with what one has to work with in the new missal.

    Reply
  44. M. Jackson Osborn

    Joe O’Leary :
    “we acclaim” cannot be used in this way in grammatical English. And the list of the celestial hierarchy belongs to a medieval world not to that of today.

    Only comments with a full name will be approved.

    This is not sarcasm: by what grammatical principle can’we’ not ‘acclaim’?

    And: are you suggesting that the heavenly host in which our ancient and mediaeval forebears believed has ceased to exist now that we are in the XXI. century? Perhaps, sadly, it has for those whose faith is in what is studiedly ‘relevant’… but not the rest of us.

    Reply
    1. Sandi Brough

      No, he is suggesting that there was never any “heavenly host” in the first place, and that medievals were just making up superstitions. Duh. Welcome to the XXI century, where we actually have science now.

      Reply
      1. Joe O'Leary

        “We acclaim: ‘Hail to the chief'” is incorrect GRAMMAR. Do you understand the meaning of “grammar”? Are you a native English speaker?

        Acclaim is a transitive verb taking a direct object, e.g. I acclaimed his decision, we acclaimed the soccer champion. But the object cannot be a statement.

        Similarly, one can say ‘We admire potatoes,’ or ‘we admire Jill’ but not ‘We admire “Potatoes are nourishing”‘ etc.

      2. Joe O'Leary

        Of course the nine orders of the angelic hierarchy are a medieval invention based on Proclus, and they would not be so widely accepted were it not for the forgery of Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite (6th cent.) who got himself taken for the Dionysius who was a disciple of St Paul.Doesn’t everyone know that?

    2. Jeffrey Pinyan

      MJO – The question is whether “acclaim” can be used in this way. Fr. Joe provided some examples of typical usages of the word “acclaim”.

      Here’s what the OED has to say on “acclaim” as a verb…

      2a. trans. To applaud, extol; welcome with acclamation.
      (1633) A magnificent Prince that is honored and acclaimed of all his subjects.
      (1865) Beatrice‥acclaimed by angels‥descends to accompany him in his visit to Paradise.
      (1879) An immense amount of national enthusiasm accompanied and acclaimed the formation of the volunteer army.
      (1881) The spirit which acclaimed the speeches of Mr. Bright.

      b. (With complement.) To name with acclamation as; to proclaim or announce with applause.
      (1749) The shouting Crowd Acclaims thee King of Traitors.
      (1876) The twelve most high Gods judging with one mouth Acclaimed her victress.

      c. intr. To shout applause.
      (1652) The Romans did this brave young Emp’rour crown‥Acclaiming from their steeples and their towers.
      (1837) And all men accuse, and uproar, and impetuously acclaim.

      3. trans. To shout; to call out; spec. to utter an acclamation.
      (1659) We presently all rise up acclaiming, Glory be to thee O Lord.
      (1850) Who art thou, victim, thou—who dost acclaim Mine anguish in true words, on the wide air?

      That last meaning has a quote where “acclaim” is used in the same way the new translation uses it here. The source is, not surprisingly, a religious text: H. L’Estrange, Alliance Divine Offices. (There the word is used as a translation of the Greek epiphonountes which means, roughly, “shouting out”.)

      I’ll be honest, I’m not a fan of “acclaim” used here. It doesn’t sound natural, and I’m surprised previous use of the verb in this way exists! It seems to me to be a way to translate clamantes and dicentes with a single verb rather than with “sing/say”. I don’t see why the more natural “proclaim” was not used.

      Reply
      1. M. Jackson Osborn

        PJ and JO’L –
        Your suggestion of proclaim is a nice one; perhaps even better.
        But, I am still of the opinion that ‘accaim’ is not misused here, and your examples from the OED are vindication

  45. Tim English

    RP Burke :

    We had dialogue Mass and a school-sung high Mass back in the late 50s-early 60s in Boston, but they were for school-specific Masses only during the week. Sunday Mass was low Mass, every hour on the hour from 7 am to noon, with dead silence on our side of the altar rail, with one exception: the boy choir Mass, which just decorated the action on the altar.

    </blockquote
    My associate pastor who was the liturgy director did mention that dialouge Masses did crop in limited places but it was not a wide spread practice.

    Reply
  46. Joe O'Leary

    The new liturgy is trading on fathomless depths of ignorance and lack of culture among clergy and laity alike — this will not prevent it from having a poisonous effect on their spiritual lives and their Christian integrity!

    Reply
  47. Mitch Powers

    I did notice the Priests demeanor during his prayers and an almost sigh before saying “for many”. That said the rest of the Mass went well and the people all said their parts. The only thing I did observe that did not seem correct was with the rubrics.. No one struck their breast during the Confiteor, at least no one around me, and again no one bowed during the Creed at the mention of Mary’s name. I think they are so worried about the translation words that they are not up to doing all the actions that are prescribed which foster active participation. I suspect in a few weeks they will have it all down pat.

    Reply
  48. Jack Feehily

    Responding to the priest’s prayers was not a common practice except in parishes that advocated the dialogue Mass. That was why SC advocated full, active and conscious participation.

    Reply
  49. M. Jackson Osborn

    Joe O’Leary :
    Of course the nine orders of the angelic hierarchy are a medieval invention based on Proclus, and they would not be so widely accepted were it not for the forgery of Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite (6th cent.) who got himself taken for the Dionysius who was a disciple of St Paul.Doesn’t everyone know that?

    Only comments with a full name will be approved.

    JO’L –
    Just for clarity, then: are you contending that there are no angels, or merely that the nine choirs of angels are a mediaeval fabrication? (If only the latter, then we should stop singing ‘Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones’, shouldn’t we? (More grinchness! Will it never cease?)

    Reply
  50. Tim English

    Michael Podrebarac :

    “ALL English speaking Catholics [sic]” haven’t implemented it yet. New Zealand has yet to implement the full Missal. And there are PLENTY of English-speaking Catholics who do not belong to the Latin Rite. You really should be more careful with your facts, Tim, before you post so many times. I say this with fraternal affection. Your record on the current topic at hand is rather dubious.

    Then I’ll refine my comments to pertaning to all English speaking Latin Rite Catholics. The Missal changes only pertain to Latin Rite Catholics, not Byzantines, Maronites (whose liturgies are said in Aramaic) Coptic Catholics etc.

    Reply
    1. Michael Podrebarac

      Yes, I am aware that the changes are only for Latin Rite Catholics. That was my point. But you still forgot about New Zealand. They’re not using the full Missal yet.

      And the Maronite liturgy can be offered in the vernacular, by the way.

      Reply
      1. Paul Inwood

        Nor is Hong Kong. They said they wanted another year to prepare for it.

      2. Tim English

        Probably because New Zealand is a province of Canada which has two native languages-English and French- so they have as much of a challenge as Hong Kong in the implementation of the new missal.

      3. Bill deHaas

        Tim – you seem to have a number of “howlers”…here is another one…..New Zealand is a province of Canada???

        Really, could have sworn that it was settled by English settlers after the treaty between England and the native Maori tribes in 1840.

        Some of your comments remind me of Michele Bachmann’s rendition and interpretations of American History.

  51. Tim English

    Samuel J. Howard :

    remember- in the Trindentine Mass, the faithful were not permitted to respond to the priest’s invocations. That was done either by the altar boys the deacon and subdeacon and the choir or cantor.
    So St. Pius X was just confused when he wrote that, “Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.”
    Note that he’s not changing the law, but asking for effort to restore the still permitted ancient practice.

    But those efforts were not widespread- I did read that awhile back- Even though were Dialouge Masses in Europe, that practice was not common in the United States- I am aware that in 1955, Pius XII tried to encourage the use of venacular languages to celebrate the liturgy, but that practice did not become widespread until the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council and the publication of Comme Le Prevoit in 1969 and the first edition of the RM.

    Reply
  52. Tim English

    Sean Whelan :

    Lol! I hate to engage in this kind of back and forth, but after reading through your comments, I dare say you need to do the brushing up on things liturgical. And as an FYI, I have read both of those books.

    WHATEVER- And while I am at it- I don’t like it when people try to back me into a corner are argumentative. I need you and others on here to discuss things with me civilly without backing me into a corner and becoming argumentative with me. Let it go-there’s no need to argue against every point I make- whether they are right or wrong. Perhaps, since this is a site operated by Liturgical Press, a division of the Order of St. Benedict- everyone on here should read The Rule of St. Benedict in English- otherwise known as R.B.- and pay attention to Chapter 7 on the degrees of humility.
    Peace in all good.

    Reply
  53. Tim English

    Paul Inwood :

    Nor is Hong Kong. They said they wanted another year to prepare for it.

    True-and that is because they have a daunting task to have a version of the missal in English and the other in Chinese, and the Chinese language did not originate from the Latin- so they have more of a challenge ahead of them.

    Reply
    1. Claire Mathieu

      Lucky them! Liturgiam Authenticam is moot for them.

      Reply
    2. Bill deHaas

      neither did english?? what does that have to do with it?

      Actually some of the other langague conferences utilize the english conferences and their translation to do their future translations e.g. Japanese; some of the dialects in the Philippines, Africa, SE Asia, India.

      Reply
  54. Tim English

    Bill deHaas :

    Tim – you seem to have a number of “howlers”…here is another one…..New Zealand is a province of Canada???
    Really, could have sworn that it was settled by English settlers after the treaty between England and the native Maori tribes in 1840.
    Some of your comments remind me of Michele Bachmann’s rendition and interpretations of American History.

    Again- I say to you what I said to Sean- I don’t like being backed into a corner I need to be engaged in a civil discussion and to not be involved in an argument. – And you don’t have to argue every point I make, right or wrong- let it go- life’s too short!

    Reply

Posted

in

, ,

by

Editor

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading