The Catholic Mass New Translations: Is the Church Going Backwards?
Tommy Garvin
jdbradleyI guess the American bishops got bored, or else the Vatican figured it hadn't screwed around with anything for a while because for the past four or five Sundays, we've been gradually introducing a slew of new responses, new prayer wording, and new acclamations. I don't profess to be some sort of church scholar, but what they're doing seems to be going backwards.
Back before I was born, at the end of the 1960s, the bishops and pope got together for Vatican II and came up with some changes in how Mass is conducted. Seems that no one was paying much attention during the years the Mass was still celebrated in Latin with the priest's back to the people. Most didn't know what they were praying as they spoke the Latin verses. So the Church changed. Mass began to be celebrated in the language of the locale. They changed the responses so the people felt more a part of everything. Things were good. I mean, let's be honest, as a kid it was still boring, and I have to figure if you're not Catholic school educated, the readings have got to be painful.
Now, I don't know if the Church decided it was time to distract people from all the abuse cases plaguing it just about everywhere, but come Advent, everything is changing, and I'm not so sure it's for the better. I'm pretty positive that things were rough after Vatican II. People had to learn the responses in English. Old habits surely were hard to break. And Sunday Mass probably sounded more like a haphazard combination of English and Latin, making people wonder if all the changes were worth it. All this took place before my time, but I believe they were worth it. What's going on today, not so much.
On the surface, the changes aren't that big a deal. For example, instead of saying “And also with you,” we are now saying, “And with your spirit.” I think “And also with you” sounds a bit friendlier, but lets not pick knits here. But then we go a few lines down. Used to be that after a priest said, “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God,” we would say, “It is right to give him thanks and praise.” What's wrong with that, and why change it to “It is right and just.” If you're not listening, you have no idea what's right and just.
They've changed the Gloria, the Holy Holy, and have completely reworked the Creed. The Creed is a long prayer where we, as Catholics, rattle off everything we believe in once a week. It begins, “We believe in one God.” WE believe. It makes the Mass kind of communal, like we're all one big family. We believe. Not anymore. Starting in Advent, it's “I believe in one God.” Turns out community isn't that important now. Individuality reigns. The Church is saying it's OK for things to be all about ME ME ME. Plus it has words like “consubstantial” in it. What is the deal here?
My son is going to be receiving his first communion soon. I remember trying to remember all the words to “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed.” My son is going to have a few more words to remember, and does the change really make a difference to the meaning? “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” Seriously? Was the whole priest abuse thing that much of a distraction that the Church needed to take our minds off of it by confusing us during Mass?
To my pastor's credit, he got up on the pulpit and told us all that he has no idea what consubstantial means, but the Church wants us to more mirror the English to the official language of the Church—Latin. So now we're back to Latin. The straight Latin translation of “et cum spiritu tuo” is “and with your spirit.” OK. I can buy that. But is any of this really worth it? I mean, why is it such a big deal? Why are we doing this NOW? Do we really need to change these things every 30 or 40 years? Does the Pope get bored? A Catholic Mass is already confusing enough to outsiders with all the standing and kneeling followed by sitting, and standing, etc. Do we really need to muddy the waters with “consubstantial?”
What bothers me more than anything is that we're going from a somewhat down-to-earth language to sounding more highfalutin. The Church is in a major state of flux. Even the faithful have begun to lose faith in it—not the teachings that are its foundation, but in the institution. Changing the language of the Mass so that it more closely resembles the strict translation from a dead language probably is not the way to go at this moment in time.
I'm not actually serious when I say the Church is doing this to distract congregations from the fact that their parish priests are missing, having been placed on administrative leave because of various allegations of abusing children. However, the timing for this is all wrong. The walls of the institution are cracking. That is where the Church needs to place its focus, not on whether or not the Americans are too loose with their translations.
So for those who only go to Church at Christmas or Easter, get ready to be standing in the back of the standing room only Church, confused because no one is speaking the same language as last year.
Reader Comments (5)
I have to admit that I haven't looked at the changes closely, however, I didn't feel that the mass itself needed changing. What I think needs to be changed is the education of Catholics. People are lukewarm Catholics because they're not learning from the Church about the richness of the Catholic tradition and its history.
It's not that the Mass itself needs changing, but I feel that the way in which they've changed our responses changes the Mass. It makes it less communal to me. For some time, we are going to focus more on trying to remember what we're supposed to say instead of about what we're saying and why. To me that takes us back a few steps. Standardization at this particular juncture in Church history really isn't what the leaders need to be thinking about.
I am not a huge fan of the changes and seems like a signal to the masses that we (The Bishops/Vatican) are in charge. They are trying to uniform the service to have more control over it, and it does have pyschological implications. An organization tries to control everything so that people do not act with autonomy, and this not only includes the congregation but also the priests. Autonomy and Individualism is the enemy of an institution that thrives on blind allegiance and hierarchal structure.
The confusing sentence stucture and vocabulary of the new translations are other forms of control and dominance. Instead of making the language more approachable and easier, they have decided to pick hairs. It is uncomfortable and not natural and I guess perhaps that is the point the Church is making. Mass should not be a comfortable place, but a place of worship that is anti-societal and not for your pleasure.
It is a fascinating post and language issue that I am also dealing with and I think it is all about retaining and demonstarting who is control, more a mesage for the priests than for the congregation.
You do sacrifice your individuality when you attend Church and that is fine with me. It is nice to get lost in the ritual and traditions as Barb said above. It is comforting to be a child and do and say things I have done since birth. It is a calming and introspective period of my week that I value. I do value the mass because for one hour a week all I have to do is follow and think of loftier notions and ideals.
The Catholic Church is playing mind games again with this new translations. It will not bring us closer to God or the true spirit, only openness and kindness can do that. The New Translation might make us better US Catholics, but I think it has nothing to do with making us better Christians. And that is the point of any Sunday service.
Thanks for the lunch, Tommy.
In my view, if one changes the responses which are an integral part of the mass, then the mass is changing in a subtle way. And yes, I do agree that the new wording doesn't reflect the communal nature that to me has always been at the heart of Catholicism.
I would disagree that individuality is sacrificed when one attends church. The rituals and traditions can seem controlling and authoritarian if there isn't an understanding of the history. Yes, we all say and do the same things every time we go to Mass. There's a sense of continuity there and a sense of the communal nature that Catholics have done and said these things for centuries. Yet, we're all asked to bring our own prayers and petitions to Jesus each time. We're reminded to focus on our own sins and sinful natures, not our neighbors. In the end, Mass is what we make of it individually and how we bring our sense of Jesus into each individual encounter in daily life.
There are some changes I'm on board with. For example, when we changed from saying "this is the word of the Lord" to simply "the word of the Lord." It made sense. They didn't want the words on the page in the book to be considered the word of the Lord, but the words spoken as the lector reads the reading. That makes total sense. And, to an extent, I guess changing all the hymns to be more neutral than male makes sense too, but it really messes me up sometimes when the songs I used to know by heart are different.
To me what's important about the universality of the Church is not the responses. What's important to me is that around the world, Mass is celebrated with a Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist. That universality is far more important to me than marrying responses more accurately to a dead language. part of me really thinks that at some point some of the pastors are going to say the heck with it and let peopel resopnd teh wya they've been doing for more than 40 years.