The controversial new translation of the Roman Missal was introduced in the Catholic Church in New Zealand in September by first implementing\u00a0the Order of Mass with the people\u2019s parts. The proper texts of the priest will come into use at Pentecost.<\/p>\n
The editors of the New Zealand Catholic<\/em> are making a valiant effort to promote the translation (e.g. the editorial \u201cNew English requires an honest effort,\u201d February 13), but the letters to the editor are running solidly negative. Since late December 2010, only one letter to the editor has been somewhat supportive. Bernice Keenan wrote in the Dec. 25-Jan. 29 issue:<\/p>\n I am pleased with the new translation of the Mass text\u2026 I have to think a bit more about the responses and forge new habits, and that\u2019s fine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But she says of the implementation:<\/p>\n I believe the imposition of the new version was a false step initially. It has led to disunity in the wider Catholic community. This is particularly evident at weddings and funerals with other Christians and\/or lapsed Catholics.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n She also objects to the inclusion of two options for the wording of the Lord\u2019s Prayer:<\/p>\n The Lord\u2019s Prayer, which should be a point of familiarity and connections becomes the opposite.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is the closest thing to support in any readers\u2019 letters.<\/p>\n Three critical letters appeared in the Jan. 30-Feb. 12 issue. Teresa Homan writes, referring to \u201cI\u201d replacing \u201cWe\u201d in the creed,<\/p>\n I fail to see how this translation is more meaningful, but I see how individualistic it requires my faith to be. It would be good, also to understand the meaning behind the words \u201ccome under my roof.\u201d What \u201croof\u201d? My house roof, the church roof, the roof of my mouth? Likewise, perhaps a dictionary meaning beside the word consubstantial for the ordinary folk may assist our understanding.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Tony Scott writes in the same issue:<\/p>\n Just take the word “men” in contrast to “us all.” Surely there is a sense of exclusion there. Perhaps some obscure group of theologians can interpret it to include all mankind, but the ordinary person accepts it as meaning what it says \u2013 “men” denotes members of the male sex. It smacks of being a long-past historical attitude that prevailed when women were not counted\u2026 It can only be regarded with regret that so much time and resources were poured into this venture by the Church when there are so many causes crying out for attention.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Patricia Minehan writes:<\/p>\n These changes of wording in the Mass liturgy are, for many of us, frustrating and backward in thinking. For the resultant text, was the time and cost expended truly merited?… Will these latest changes increase our devotion, enlarge our congregations, or inspire our youth? We have no such expectations and we wonder where our priorities lie.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the Feb. 13-16 issue the paper ran an editorial by Fr. Peter Janssen, \u201cNew translation of the Mass superior in many ways.\u201d He argues that the new translation is more accurate and that it is superior to the current translation in its style, register, formality, and other literary features. This give the new text its \u201cattitude, depth, timelessness, and, eventually, effectiveness.\u201d He states:<\/p>\n A full appreciation of the improvements will have to wait until the collects, prefaces, and other prayers said by the priest are promulgated later this year.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The same issue has a letter by June Macmillan:<\/p>\n The recent return to the pre-Vatican II concepts in the Sunday Eucharist has left me feeling deceived and confused\u2026 For a short 50 years, courtesy of Vatican II, we were permitted to be the people of God, made so by the format of our Sunday Eucharist, both in word and action. In one short year the work done by the Council has been negated\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Referring to \u201cfor us men and our salvation,” she writes:<\/p>\n