Rorate Caeli

That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet

"A reading from the First Epistle of Saint Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians." Corinthians?...

The Church has preserved for us so many homilies of the Latin Fathers of the Church - and we know that, almost since there were written records of the Scripture read in Mass, the exact same Epistle had been used in the City of Rome since time immemorial, and for all centuries thereafter, for the same Sunday, i.e., Romans, chapter xiii: the Epistle Scientes, as it can be seen in countless books and illuminations from so many centuries ago. Not A, not B, and not C.

This is in fact one of the many reasons for which we love the Mass, the Traditional Mass, so much: that Epistle, read over fifteen centuries ago in the City of Rome is the exact same one we will hear this Sunday.

_________________________

Can a "better", "more accurate" translation improve something that was made up under false pretense, based on false assumptions, built on misread or misunderstood historical pseudo-discoveries, and even with hidden malicious and destructive intentions? The New Order of the Liturgy is all that the Roman Liturgy is not: the new one is verbose, the Traditional one is terse; the new is artificial, the Traditional is organic; the new is frivolous, the Traditional is sober; the new is disjointed, the Traditional is fluid; the new is multiform and multifarious, the Traditional is uniform and universal; the new is a kaleidoscope, varying according to language, country, diocese, parish, priest, and congregation (represented in the rubrics of the new rite by the endless litany of or...or...or...or...or); the Traditional is stable and trustworthy: stat crux dum volvitur orbis.

So what will essentially change in the English-speaking world with the new-new translation of the new-new-new-Missal? Nothing. Not a single one of the new problems is lost in translation, for they are not translation problems. Those (very) few communities where there was a solemn celebration will keep having them. The rest will remain with whatever they have. The multiplicity of everything, including the heart of the Sacrifice, the "Eucharistic Prayers"? They are there. Anthropocentric behavior and showmanship? They are there. Communion in the hand? It is there. A crowded sanctuary? There. "Extraordinary Ministers"? There.

Cataclysmic? Disastrous? Calamitous? The Novus Ordo may be described in many ways. We have another word for its translations: irrelevant.

65 comments:

R. Catesby said...

Bingo! I've been saying this for months. All of the hand-wringing and heavy breathing from the modern Catholic bunch is overkill. They still control every aspect of the liturgy. The only possible positive thing to come from this is that maybe, just maybe, there will be a few people who will see the note the juxtaposition of a better translation with the rest of the silliness at Mass.

shane said...

Well said. This new translation is being overpraised in conservative circles. I find it clunky and artificial. Undoubtedly it's an improvement on the previous one but then again that doesn't say very much...

Knight of Malta said...

The New Order of the Liturgy is all that the Roman Liturgy is not: the new one is verbose, the Traditional one is terse; the new is artificial, the Traditional is organic; the new is frivolous, the Traditional is sober; the new is disjointed, the Traditional is fluid; the new is multiform and multifarious, the Traditional is uniform and universal; the new is a kaleidoscope, varying according to language, country, diocese, parish, priest, and congregation (represented in the rubrics of the new rite by the endless litany of or...or...or...or...or); the Traditional is stable and trustworthy: stat crux dum volvitur orbis.

I know we're preaching to the choir, but I love it!

Christ, born of Mary, came among man, was Crucified out of love for man, set-up a Church to perpetuate his Sacrifice. This unbloody Sacrifice was perpetuated for almost 2,000 years.

Paul VI and Bugnini decided to re-invent the Holy Sacrifice along modernist/masonic/protestant lines.

To lie is a sin, but to withhold the truth can also be a sin. So, to speak truth, the modernists won-out in making the new mass a meal over a Sacrifice.

Pioquinto said...

I young friend of mine went to his first novusordo mass in 2010. He is parishioner of the SSPX.
He promised no to go back again.

Louis said...

To paraphrase a relative, the revised translation is supposed to fix the worst abuses by sticking closer to being a literal translation of the official Latin N.O. missal...but it is that N.O. missal in Latin that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (and Bishops Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer) objected to!

Brian said...

The same holds true for adding a few dabs of Gregorian Chant here and there.

Adding Gregorian Chant to "something that was made up under false pretense, based on false assumptions, built on misread or misunderstood historical pseudo-discoveries, and even with hidden malicious and destructive intentions" merely adds one more form and color to the "multiform and multifarious . . . kaleidoscope."

Samuel J. Howard said...

Can a "better", "more accurate" translation improve something that was made up under false pretense, based on false assumptions, built on misread or misunderstood historical pseudo-discoveries, and even with hidden malicious and destructive intentions?

Uh, yes. This is pretty obvious, actually. If someone is shot in the arm is that better than being shot in the head? Yes. Something can still be undesirable while being better than something else. There are greater and lesser evils.

So what will change in the English-speaking world with the new-new translation of the new-new-new-Missal? Nothing. Those (very) few communities where there was a solemn celebration will keep having them. The rest will remain with whatever they have.

The offered string of "reasoning" does not speak to the rhetorical question. The theology of the new English translation is closer to the theology of the Latin of the Novus Ordo and therefore closer to the theology of the Traditional Latin Mass than the current English is. Those who have eyes can see this.

Even the Liberals see this. That's why we have articles like this one complaining about the imposition of this theology on the Church (though the author doesn't understand that this is the Church's theology and not something foreign to it.)

Barbara said...

"Those (very) few communities where there was a solemn celebration will keep having them. The rest will remain with whatever they have. The multiplicity of everything, including the heart of the Sacrifice, the "Eucharistic Prayers"? They are there. Anthropocentric behavior and showmanship? They are there. Communion in the hand? It is there. A crowded sanctuary? There. "Extraordinary Ministers"? There. "

This is absolutely true. There is no "fixing" this fragmented Mass. A few word changes will not do it. Liturgical anarchy has become "mainstream"....no question about it.
Apart from the Consecration, of course correctly done, the NO is like a prayer meeting, ..you forgot to mention the Prayers of the Faithful...I think maybe even Our Blessed Lord might have a yawn there, for they are most of the time, banal and self or world- serving .. .bla bla bla

Barbara

New Catholic said...

Mr. Howard,

Yes, it is reasoning, even if you do not agree with it or do not quite grasp it - no need for scare quotes...

"If someone is shot in the arm is that better than being shot in the head? Yes. Something can still be undesirable while being better than something else."

Since you were the one willing to use a violent analogy, which we had not dared use, allow us to present one that can illuminate our "reasoning": it could be argued that to be killed brutally by a burglar with a shot in the head is less desirable than being killed with a sword at the end of a duel. True, the end-result is the same, but one is obviously allowed to wish to die in a very elegant manner... (Though, truth be told, elegance and style are not words with which the new-new translation has been described. So perhaps the first option would be more desirable, since, though unattractive, it can be very "accurate"...)
--

As for the disputes between "Conservatives" and "Liberals", we can do no more than watch from the sidelines. A prominent "Convervative" website celebrates today that the new-new translation preserves "the achievements of Vatican II". So we are not sure we will be taking sides in this "Liberal"-"Conservative" debate...

NC

Adfero said...

On NC's point that nothing really changes, this disappoint from a neocon blog (gotta love the lenghs they go to to not used the word "Mass"!:

"However, here's what was a distraction to active participation in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb in all of its eschatological dimensions, new texts or not:

1. Mass opening with the suggestion that we turn to our neighbor and introduce ourselves.

2. The show-tune style Kyrie accompanied by a piano and a cantor singing like a Broadway soloist with arms stretched wide and a big grin.

3. The mother in front of me giving animal crackers to her over-the-age-of-first-Communion daughter and assisting in her breaking the Communion fast.

4. The permanent deacon leaving the sanctuary and pacing back and forth in the front aisle, preaching for 13 minutes and never once mentioning the Gospel reading from the Mass.

5. More piano-accompanied Broadway-style singing during Communion complete with a wide wavy vibrato and vocal scooping.

6. The general roar of conversation in the church after Mass with no interest at all in reverent silence.

Praise God that we have elegant and elevated new texts. But they were almost forgotten among the mundane, the un-liturgical and the just plain tacky. Much work remains to be done in implementing the riches of the Council."

shane said...

"Much work remains to be done in implementing the riches of the Council."

This sentence gives me goosebumps...

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear N.C. That the Holy Ghost was at work in your intellect when you drafted this fantastic post is obvious.

Kudos, N.C.

Of course, you wrote this so well that you tempt me into sinning by Envy; and so, I choose to merely be jealous :)

Art Thou Elias? said...

May God bless you richly for telling it like it is. I have come to view the Novus Ordo as an abomination, an anti-Catholic scourge and infestation. It took me several years to arrive at that conclusion, but there it is. Thank God for the SSPX, and thank God for this blog.

Tom said...

Having assisted at the "new" New Mass (the new translation), I believe that the liberal vs. conservative build up to the new translation was ridiculous.

Liberals insisted that the )ignorant) Faithful would fail to comprehend the new translation.

The new translation would throw the Faithful into confusion.

Nonsense.

Conversely, as various "conservative" blogs have pretended this morning, the new translation has altered the Novus Ordo Mass experience dramatically.

Oh, my, the Novus Ordo Mass is now...Traditional! The Novus Ordo is just as traditional as the TLM!

Nonsense.

Sorry, liberals, but nobody in the pews will leave the Church as the result of the new Roman Missal.

At worst, it may take a Mass or two before a "confused" Catholic leaves "and also with you" behind.

Sorry, conservatives, but I failed to discern a tremendous difference in the "new" Novus Ordo vs. the "old" Novus Ordo.

On one prominent "conservative" priest's blog today, I read comments from posters that the new translation moved them this morning to "tears of joy."

Okay.

I wish that I could share the belief among conservatives that the Novus Ordo Mass experience is now "traditional."

But that isn't the case.

Again, I believe that the hype — liberal and conservative — that surrounded the new translation proved to be utter nonsense.

Tom

Jonvilas said...

You may rightly call it that (since it is), yet more than a billion of those believers, who consider themselves to be catholics, including all those several hundred millions who regularly attend the Mass on Sundays, participate only in this "irrelevant" form, knowing no other. Well, at least in English-speaking world this new translation was a step in a right direction. However, just one small step. What is necessary, is a change of mind and heart. How to do that, not loosing those souls, I am not so sure. Divine intervention would suffice, of course. :)

James Ignatius McAuley said...

Folks,

The one person who, in my opinion, actually raised a good point was Louis. But this is a point that needs to be further delved into, beyond the usual reiterations of the Ottaviani Intervention and the sainlty, if not great, Michael Davies's works. The liberals or progressives never hid their agenda, it was out in the open, for all to see. Read The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform by Cipriano Vagaggini, O.S.B., first published in Italian in 1966 and English in 1967 by Alba House. It will shock you. No, there is no attack on the mass as a sacrifice, but there is an attack directed against the Roman canon. What are the Canon's main faults and the justification for the new Eucharistic prayers? "The Present Roman canon sins in a number of ways against those requirements of good liturgical composition and sound liturgical sense that were emphasized by the Second Vatican Council." The Canon of the Mass . . . at Page 90. This is utterly ridiculous and is not a justification to throw out the Canon, or to create new Eucharistic prayers.

For the record, Vagaggini was the primary author of the Third Eucharistic Prayer and the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer.

However, for those efforts that lead to a diminishment of the sacrificial nature of the mass, I would suggest A.M. Roguet's, O.P., The New Mass from 1970, which explains a lot -- you can buy a good and orthodox work by Father Roguet from Angelus Press on the Sacraments.

James Ignatius McAuley

New Catholic said...

Jonvilas,

We never said the rite itself is irrelevant, not at all. It has been quite relevant, very, very relevant, indeed!

NC

nmoerbeek said...

I disagree with this post, I believe the new translations are a step in the right direction.

M. A. said...

"Again, I believe that the hype..."
_____________________________

And that's all it is: HYPE.

It's been in the news, on the front page of the newspapers, on the radio.

Some of the comments I have heard or read in the media have been downright silly, ignorant, and some of them plain stupid such as that comment by a priest on Relevant Radio who excused the "faulty translations" on the grounds of the haste to get the texts out to the people.

Duh. If they had picked up any pre-VII English-Latin Missal they would have had a proper translation right there and then.

Those who want to be deceived will continue to be deceived.

Today, we assisted at the TLM - as usual - and as usual I was in heaven!

Tom said...

More important than the new translation, there is one thing that the Holy Father could do to change the Novus Ordo dramatically and for the better:

Eliminate each Eucharistic Prayer except EP I.

Of the thousands of Novus Ordo Masses at which I've assisted during the past 40 years, the only times — and incredibly few there have been — that I've been dismissed having felt that I had assisted at "real" Masses have been at Masses which featured EP I.

EP I (close to the Traditional Roman Canon) alters the Novus Ordo dramatically and for the better.

Tom

Tom said...

Having approved of the new, new, new Roman Missal, I doubt the claims of certain folks that the Pope plans to move us to the "hybrid" Mass that is supposedly in the offing.

I don't believe that Rome would give us a new, New Mass only to discard the new, New Mass in favor of a new, new, New Mass.

Tom

Edward said...

Today only highlights the fact that Pope Paul VI made a tragic decision when he pushed the Novus Ordo on us.

Subsequent Popes have made the tragic collective decision to keep the Novus Ordo as the primary Mass of the Western Church.

Matthew said...

My thought on the new translation of the novus ordo:

I assisted at the TLM today.

Now, that doesn't mean none of this matters in some sense, or whatever, as some are saying. Perhaps it is a step in the right direction. Fine. Whatever. I am blessed to have access to a daily TLM, and blessed to know that it is infinitely superior to the novus ordo. Hopefully sooner rather than later this nonsense will cease with the full restoration of the TLM.

Is it a better translation? Sure. Is it still objectively deficient, not just in the ridiculous ways in which it gets celebrated, but in the very texts themselves? Absolutely. So if the new translation leads to more "steps" that conclude in throwing the novus ordo down into the abyss, then deo gratias.

Regardless, I assisted at the TLM today and that is what I think about the new translation.

Jon said...

It fascinates me to read the tremendous difference of opinions between conservative/traditional Catholics and clear-cut Traditional Catholics.

I don't know if the following will be allowed here (to mention another blog), but I believe Father Zuhldorf's blog is a conservative/traditional blog (and an important blog).

While Tradition is promoted in many ways, many posters to his blog proclaim their allegiance to the Novus Ordo.

Some announce that they attend Novus Ordo and Traditional Masses.

The impression today on Father's blog is that the new translation of the Roman Missal is close to the greatest thing that ever happened within the Church.

Some posters said they were overhelmed with such joy today that they cried.

On the other hand, the impression one gathers from reading this blog is that the translation is much ado about nothing.

Everything here remains gloom and doom when it comes to the Novus Ordo.

It just strikes me that I doubt liturgical peace may be obtained between conservatives/traditionalists and TLM-only Traditionalists. They simply see things so differently.

New Catholic said...

"Gloom and doom"? Not at all! We love the Novus Ordo! We could say about the Novus Ordo what the Rebbe says of the Tsar in the film version of Fiddler on the Roof: "May God bless and keep the Tsar - far away from us!"

Adfero said...

"Some posters said they were overhelmed with such joy today that they cried."

That only shows how bad they have it in the Novus Ordo.

Changing a few words brings them to tears? They'd cry a river then at the most basic traditional low Mass. Their heads would probably explode at a solemn high Mass!

Tina said...

I respectfully ask fellow posters on this blog to help me understand this discussion. About a year ago I attended a Traditional Latin Mass celebrated in my diocese. There were some booklets in Latin and I tried to follow along but this Mass had very little meaning for me. I might as well have been in a foreign country listening to a Mass in the particular language of that country. Today I attended the Mass with the new translation and with the exception of a handful of new words (consubstantial and incarnate, etc.) there was little change for me. I felt that I could follow the prayers in this Mass and participate while at the Latin Mass I felt that I wasn't participating and only a spectator at a ritual. So why do some of you feel that you get so much more from the TLM? Do you really understand all the Latin? While I took four years of Latin in high school and remembered some of the Latin Mass responses, I couldn't follow along. Please accept that I am posting this with all sincerity. I simply want to understand.

A Loyal Reader said...

"We have another word for its translations: irrelevant." Well said, New Catholic! The churchmen have not only made the One True Faith irrelevant, but they have reduced it to a laughing stock in the eyes of too many. Truly, the Beautiful Bride of Christ is being made to imitate His Passion, complete with mocks, spittle, and dragging through the mud of the world. The organized effort to discredit, embarrass and bankrupt the Church of God goes on. No matter - we will fight on to the end. Lord give us the grace of final perseverance. Amen.

A Catholic said...

Jon, I can say nothing charitable about the NO, to me it is a complete disaster and I avoid it at all costs.

The only rare exception is to fulfill my Sunday obligation in an emergency but then I don't take communion or actively participate, I pray hard.

I can tell you wonderful things about the TLM, the extra ordinary means of grace for Catholic souls. It will change your life. Once you experience it you won't go back to the synthetic mass.

I love the faith of our Fathers, my heritage, a treasure house. I thank God every minute for allowing me, a lowly sinner, to attend the TLM.

Good for the NO to get some change for the better, but it is a mere crumb and they will continue to tinker away for another 50 years.

I am so happy to say good riddance to the NO, I ain't going back, I have shaken the dust off....I can at last say that I am truly a Catholic, I understand what that means now.

Happy Advent.

A Catholic

Raymond said...

Hey Tina,
I understand what you are saying and would suggest that you read up on why Latin is so important to the Mass. Why the rituals and structures of the Mass are put in place. Our forefathers have much to say on the matter. re.

Your comparison to a foreign land is good. Consider, that when the Mass is said in Latin, no matter where you go in the world you can understand the Mass, it gives unity.

The NO and TLM are very different. The latter requires more of a sacrifice, which in my opinion is well worth it.

It took me some time to get into the rhythm of the old rite. I persevered and it has been a great blessing in my life.

I also believe that women have a harder time initially when switching between the NO and the TLM. Sacred silence, ritual, structure are harder on women.

Please give the TLM a period of time for you to get accustomed to it. Learn about it. You won't be disappointed.


God Bless you during Advent.

Ray

Adfero said...

Tina, there are many others more qualities to guide you on this, but I do have this advice:

1. Keep going and don't stop
2. Read your missal before you get to Mass
3. While at Mass, for a while, don't try to follow it, just sit back and listen and watch what's happening on the altar. Take it all in and pray. Learn to follow it exactly later

Jordanes551 said...

The new translation is a most welcome improvement in the celebration of the reformed Roman Mass -- faithful and accurate translation is inarguably superior to intentionally unfaithful, deliberate mistranslation (especially when the mistranslation is part of a heretical agenda).

It's a big step in the right direction, but this is only the first of many, many, many steps before the Roman liturgy is restored. Also to be addressed is the awful music, worship ad populum, praying in the vernacular, neglect of the propers, Communion in the hand, unnecessary ministers of Holy Communion, cheap vestments, artistically and architecturally gutted churches . . . .

We still have a long way to go.

Christine said...

Tina wrote about assisting at the TLM:

"I might as well have been in a foreign country listening to a Mass in the particular language of that country."

This just shows how far we've come in a few decades, that the Mass of the ages, the one Latin rite Catholics have been celebrating the world over for centuries and centuries, so dear and familiar to so many, has been totally eclipsed by a pared down, vernacular, protestantized version imposed on the faithful everywhere. Your sentiments expressed above would have had no place a mere 40 years ago--but now, sadly, most Catholics would feel the same way you feel assisting at the TLM. It's a terrible shame that so many of us have been robbed of our patrimony and given a banal substitute in its place. Yes, the N.O. is valid, when said with the right intention; but that's not the same as saying it is as theologically or liturgically rich as the TLM.

Read Michael Davies's "Pope Paul's New Mass" to get an introduction to the reasons why traditionalists have an attachment to the TLM.

Elizabeth said...

I think charity should lead you to have a little care for the millions who attend the Missa Normativa and for whom this improved translation is greatly necessary at this time. Pope Benedict XVI would agree that there need to be greater changes than just a more accurate vernacular translation. But the people who need to be shepherded safely home need a continuity now with the liturgical form they know and the reality is you cannot simply swap out the EF Mass for all without scandalizing and losing many, but the Novus Ordo itself needs to evolve. The Novus Ordo is not nothing, the Holy Sacrifice is truly being offered to the Father, and communicants in the state of grace are receiving ALL NEEDED GRACE even when the sensible reality of the Novus Ordo Mass is not forming and disposing them as well as it might, to receive that grace and let it become effective.

Pascal said...

"I also believe that women have a harder time initially when switching between the NO and the TLM. Sacred silence, ritual, structure are harder on women."

So much for the millions of devout women who, even prior to the Council, filled the pews for countless Masses.

Christine said...

"I think charity should lead you to have a little care for the millions who attend the Missa Normativa..."

Ah, charity! Always the accusation of lack of "charity" whenever the Novus Ordo is criticized in any way--as if our desire for a restoration of the fullness of our patrimony, in which Our Lord is given due honor and His people are blessed with a superabundance of graces, is an uncharitable thing!

Dymphna said...

"I also believe that women have a harder time initially when switching between the NO and the TLM. Sacred silence, ritual, structure are harder on women."


This ticked me off until I thought about whose running around the church laughing and talking about the kid's soccer game, the new outfit and what the Kardashians are doing. I don't like it but Raymond may have a point.

Jordanes551 said...

I'm not sure whether my wife had any great difficulty in being accustomed to the traditional Latin Mass, but in any case within a few weeks she had come to appreciate how quiet and restful it is in comparison to the reformed Roman Rite. It really does take a load off one's shoulders to just let the priest pray his prayers.

The thing my wife liked the least about starting to assist at a traditional Latin Mass was the way it opened her eyes to just what a liturgical trainwreck the typical celebration of the reformed Mass is. It's one thing when you don't know what you're missing, but when you know the way it can be, the way it ought to be, it's a cross to bear.

CFD said...

Christine wrote:

"Ah, charity! Always the accusation of lack of "charity" whenever the Novus Ordo is criticized in any way--as if our desire for a restoration of the fullness of our patrimony, in which Our Lord is given due honor and His people are blessed with a superabundance of graces, is an uncharitable thing!"

Christine, Elizabeth wasn't denying you or anyone here the right to criticize the Novus Ordo. What she protests -- and I join myself to her protest -- is the attitude that we shouldn't care at all for the millions of faithful for whom the Novus Ordo is the only available liturgy. For many Catholics living in the English-speaking world today, even these modest changes to the Novus Ordo already mean a lot in the long fight for greater reverence in the liturgy. Telling them to just find the TLM or die in the wilderness is a perfect example of the attitude exemplified by "let them eat cake". The attitude that those who attend the Novus Ordo should be given no quarter, so to speak, or should be afforded no help at all unless they are willing to become 100% Trads is laughable given the demands of so many Traditionalists to be helped by the Novus Ordo clergy and hierarchy.

Tony said...

Tina, even though I prefer the TLM over the Novus Ordo, I acknowledge that among Catholics, even those who grew up with the TLM, your sentiments in regard to Latin are mainstream.

Despite what many Traditionalists may tell you, the majority of "pre-Vatican II Catholics" did not enjoy hearing the Mass in Latin.

There were two liturgical changes that the majority of pre-Vatican II Catholics desired:

Vernacularized Masses and Mass facing the people.

The typical pre-Vatican II complaint among the laity was that "Father mumbles prayers in a language (Latin, of course) that nobody understands...with his back to us."

Had Pope Paul VI simply vernacularized the Roman Mass (with the priest facing the people), 99 percent of Catholics would have been satisified.

And just to keep the relatively few staunch Traditionalists — and we were and remain few — happy, the Pope and bishops could have authorized a Latin Mass or two at each parish.

Nobody in the pews demanded Communion in the hand, Altar girls, awful liturgical music and wreckovated churches.

The above nonsense was foisted upon us by liberal eggheads who viewed the Mass as their personal playgorund.

By the way, by far the "reform" that most upset the people in the pews was the destruction of beautiful churches.

Nobody understood why beautiful churches were turned into ugly "worship spaces".

But as far as the majority of pre-Vatican II Catholics were concerned, the virtual disappearance of Latin from the Mass was welcomed.

Keith said...

I assist regularly at a Novus Ordo Mass. I wish that I had access to the TLM.

Anyway, a couple of intersting things happened at Mass which, of course, was prayed according to the new translation.

1. For the first time in decades at our parish, Sanctus bells were used during Mass.

2. Prior to and following Mass, the parish church bell sounded.

Interestingly, at least to me, it hadn't occured to me for years that I had neither entered nor departed my parish to the sound of a church bell.

At any rate, I believe that the use of bells (which I hope will continue) at my parish was linked to the instution of the new translation.

By the way, my parish is pastored by an assistant bishop who, while not interested in offering TLMs at our parish, asked our priests to use portions of their homilies during the past few weeks to deepen our understanding of the Mass.

That was done by the bishop to prepare us for the new translation.

Again, while he isn't interested in providing us with the TLM, he said that the new translation prvided us with the opportunity to deepen our understanding of the Mass.

The use of Sanctus bells was part of his plan.

Therefore, I have at least some hope that our bishops and priests understand th need to traditionalize the Novus Ordo.

Gratias said...

I am a bimissal person. It is increasingly difficult to go to Novus Ordo and not be angry over something or other. I do not like the tambourines and guitars. I do not like the incomprehensible soprano chantatrice. I do not like holding hands in a human chain. I do not like the priest telling stories about his childhood while ignoring the scriptural readings. I don't like people standing after the Sanctus. I do not like same people standing at the second elevation. I do not receive communion from women or men lay ministers so have to cut in into whatever line the priest has. I take communion in the tongue but would like to kneel but that is not allowed. I detest the applause at the end. Why do I go, you might wonder? Because here in urban west Los Angeles Latin Mass is 75 miles away from us. It takes the whole day to go to mass. We write the Archbishops but they have a heart of stone. So two Sundays a month we make do with our Vatican II local parish. So Tina, you see, people can grow to like the timeless TLM.

The new translation will be an improvement, but that OF baby has a long way to go.

New Catholic said...

"Had Pope Paul VI simply vernacularized the Roman Mass (with the priest facing the people), 99 percent of Catholics would have been satisfied."

Exactly. And that is surely what almost all Conciliar Fathers thought would happen - some modifications, great vernacularization, and that was it: the 1965 rite. Instead, the Church got ... this creature, creating this great confusion in the minds of most uninformed Catholics: that what happened was just greater vernacularization.

The problems of the New Mass are not really about the language... But, if you are fully satisfied with your "participation", then, please, "participate": just know that whatever your New Mass "experience" may be (from one of those rare TLM mock-ups to a Clown-Mass), it won't be the change of translation that will alter the rite (or correct it, if you think it has any problems at all).

Sixupman said...

One church I attend has produced a dual language missallette for the N.O. But the the priest sticks rigidly to rules. He as also brought the Old Mass to his parish, together with other traditional services. At the Old Mass there is a tendency for those attending to assume a dialogue format.

Lillian said...

Tina,

Mass is the highest form of worship. It is a duty. It is what we owe God.

When you love someone, truly love them, you do desire to give them what is most beautiful and pleasing to them, not what is most pleasing to you. Therefore, we should give Him the best form of prayer, the language of the church-latin, with beautiful prayers, sacred music, and great humility in all gestures, vocalizations, and silence. This is truly present in the TLM.

That is simply not possible with the NO since the focus of the Mass changed. It has truly become centered around the human person instead of on Our Divine Master. With the change in focus, all selfishness and self centered actions followed, often the true purpose, ie our duty has been lost. It is evident in many, many parishes.

Active paticipation at Mass is giving Our Lord what he desires most, your heart , mind, and soul, in praise, adoration, thanksgiving, and petition. It should be done with great humilty. It does not necessitate vocal prayer, but silent mental prayer, especially as the priest offers the sacrifice and the miracle unfolds upon the altar.

I recommend that you read the prayers and instruction of the missal, so that you have a better idea of what is taking place during the Mass. The prayers are so beautiful and the rubrics/posture during those prayers reflects humble submission to Our Lord. If at all possible, I would suggest that you attend the TLM Mass for 6-8 Sundays in a row, then go back to the NO and see which Mass you believe is truly more pleasing to God.

You are welcome to email me if you have further questions.

Adfero said...

Tony: "Despite what many Traditionalists may tell you, the majority of "pre-Vatican II Catholics" did not enjoy hearing the Mass in Latin."

Of course, just because the laity doesn't "enjoy" this or that, surely isn't a reason to do away with it, right? I can't imagine most people "enjoy" fasting, abstinence, confession, etc. Yet, we don't do away with them.

Tina said...

To
Raymond said, Adfero, Christine, Jordanes551, Tony and Gratias, I appreciate your comments. I am most like Gratias in my opinions and reactions about the NO Mass. I just never really understood what was happening over the past forty years. I guess you could say I was the equivalent of the frog who is put into a kettle full of cool water and the water is gradually heated up until the frog expires, yet the frog really doesn't know what is happening until he is near death. You have all opened my eyes and I thank you. I will make an effort to understand what has happened to the Mass. Christine, I appreciate the book reference and I will try to read it. When I do go to Mass, I try to keep in mind that it is a Sacrifice and that I'm there to worship God and give thanks. Thank you all for helping me to see that I need to delve deeper into understanding the proper worship we need to give God.

M. A. said...

"Despite what many Traditionalists may tell you, the majority of "pre-Vatican II Catholics" did not enjoy hearing the Mass in Latin."
_______________________________

I wonder if the above is an accurate assessment. The majority?

Yesterday, an elderly priest recounted to my son that he himself experienced the phasing out of the Tridentine Mass. He explicitly said that he recalls "a lot of angry people" not being happy with the change to the NO. He himself "dragged his feet" until the bishop made him start celebrating the NO.

I suppose there were does who rejoiced at the elimination of Latin,just as there were those nuns who rejoiced at discarding their religious vestiture. And even if such were in the majority, we shouldn't take it to mean that they were correct as opposed to those who wanted to retain their traditional garments.

I've never read of the majority of the pre-VII laity clamoring for the elimination of Latin or even complaining that they did not "enjoy" hearing Mass in Latin. My parents just accepted that the Latin Mass was the fixed and perpetual way of worshiping. It would never, ever have entered their heads to petition for the vernacular or to think that perhaps they would enjoy it more if it were.

M. A. said...

P. S.

I don't think Jesus "enjoyed" hanging on a cross.

Fr. Paul McDonald said...

As a Parish Priest, struggling to get my flock into heaven, or at least to cooperate in that supreme work, the salvation of souls, or even, praying and begging the Divine Mercy that I be not an obstacle to it, I have a different perspective.

But I am a traditionalist. I lived as a seminarian (precariously!) the days before the 1984 indult. "But it's not abbrogated!" "Shut up, schismatic!" I lived that.

Anyway, from the point of view of the improved transmission of the Depositum Fidei, of the Word of God, without prejudice to the fact that I yearn for a complete, integral restoration of the Roman liturgy, and the abolition of the Novus ordo, I must be happy, hic et nunc, with the new translation.

If even one soul, hearing for the first time in the opening prayer on Sunday his need for mercy and grace, and efficaciously asking for it, so that he might be "at [Christ's] right hand" and not, therefore, at His left, among the goats, the wicked, about to be thown into the "fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"... If even one soul is enlightened and touched and thus saved, how can you be against that?

Millions heard and even prayerfully consented to that magnificent prayer on Sunday or Saturday night. Hundreds of them have since died. If they were helped on the way to Paradise, how can you begrudge that?

Tony said...

"Of course, just because the laity doesn't "enjoy" this or that, surely isn't a reason to do away with it, right? I can't imagine most people "enjoy" fasting, abstinence, confession, etc. Yet, we don't do away with them."

The difference is that "fasting, abstinence, confession" are not performed in Latin.

Nobody performs such acts while holding and reading the Roman Missal.

By the way, your point about "enjoyment" doesn't make sense.

I am not talking about "enjoying" the Mass. I am talking about understanding and experiencing Mass to the greatest extent possible.

And the best means to do so for the majority of Catholics is to hear Mass in languages that they comprehend.

The common practice in pre-Vatican II days was to at least repeat the Gospel (and sometimes the reading) in the language of the people.

Bishops and priests followed that custom as everybody understood that vernaculars, as compared to Latin, were of greater benefit to the majority of Catholics.

I am not Spartacus said...

There were two liturgical changes that the majority of pre-Vatican II Catholics desired:Vernacularized Masses and Mass facing the people.

Balderdash.

Please source that claim.

I am a Pre-Vatican Two Catholic and EVERYONE was shocked - SHOCKED DUMB, SHOCKED ANGRY - at the changes and NOT ONE, not ONE person I ever knew had made such a claim.

If that IS what Pre-Vatican Two Catholics desired and then they got it - then why did Mass attendance plummet?

Adfero said...

Tony, first, "enjoying" was your word, not mine.

Second, why would someone understand the Mass less by having it in Latin? If anything, it forces people to read their Missal, and gain a better understanding.

Do you ever see anyone in the Novus Ordo reading along in a Missal? I never did when I was attending as a child. All I saw was sheep raising their hands in the air and not having a clue what was really taking place.

If anything, the Latin forces a true understanding of the Sacrifice, while the vernacular has turned it into a meal.

Barbara said...

"I also believe that women have a harder time initially when switching between the NO and the TLM. Sacred silence, ritual, structure are harder on women”

“So much for the millions of devout women who, even prior to the Council, filled the pews for countless Masses.”
Well said, Pascal!

Well, Raymond, perhaps you can explain to me why it is that we have mostly men ie. the hierarchy of the Church who oppose the Traditional Latin Mass? What you write is simply rubbish…..and condescending. Rather, the explanation is much more complex and is connected to the form of conditioning that the whole modern Church has undergone since the “reformation/deformation” of Vatican II.


"I think charity should lead you to have a little care for the millions who attend the Missa Normativa..."

Elizabeth,
Well, all I can say is what the Pope himself has said “charity” without “truth” ain’t worth a row of beans. Well, not quite – but you know what I mean. The faithful have been duped of their Catholic patrimony over the past 50 years. So, we should all be silent about that, just because there have been slight changes to the Protestant-style Mass (openly admitted by Pope Paul VI himself).? That would be approaching sentimentalism…..

“Despite what many Traditionalists may tell you, the majority of "pre-Vatican II Catholics" did not enjoy hearing the Mass in Latin.”

“But as far as the majority of pre-Vatican II Catholics were concerned, the virtual disappearance of Latin from the Mass was welcomed.”

By what authority do you claim this as the truth, Tony? Sounds a bit sweeping to me….

Tina,
You wrote that you had only attended the Traditional Latin Mass once, a year ago. You might like to try attending some more and read up on what exactly happened to the Mass at Vatican II. Not such a pretty picture! Rorate Caeli has some excellent literature on this, “The Roman Rite – Old and New” by Don Pietro Leone is one example and might be of help to you. It’s short and to the point.

I really hope you come to love the Traditional Latin Mass,Tina. It's "the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven."

God bless.

Barbara

New Catholic said...

Dear Father McDonald,

We do not "begrudge" or "are against" the new-new translation of the new-new-new missal. That is a sentiment that simply is not expressed in the text. We did say translations are not relevant - because it is very simplistic to claim that the problems, the essential problems of the New Mass, are those of language. They are not. Just as, though the Latin language is wonderful and beautiful, it is not at all the essential quality of the Traditional Roman Mass.

Naturally, even a Protestant service may help someone get closer to God - as a convert, I know that from experience; that is, I would almost certainly not be a Catholic if Protestant worship and doctrine had not prepared me for it. So, if through the mercy of Almighty God, this poor sinner is not condemned to the fire of Hell, it will certainly be possible to say that Protestant services and catechism helped me in the first steps to reach salvation: does that mean that nothing about Protestant services and doctrine can even be criticized?...

NC

Athelstane said...

Can a "better", "more accurate" translation improve something that was made up under false pretense, based on false assumptions, built on misread or misunderstood historical pseudo-discoveries, and even with hidden malicious and destructive intentions?

With respect to New Catholic - of course it can.

There's an unpleasant amount of truth in what you say about the nature of the N.O., NC. We know it is a "banal," "on-the-spot" manufacture, as one notable pontiff has observed - translations quite beside the point. We know that abuses will continue by those who have been committing them. And yet candor requires that we recognize that, however deeply flawed it remains, the new English translation (however clunky at points) represents a real improvement, a restoration of some whiffs of tradition.

One need only look at who is howling the most loudly about it to know that this represents a step in the right direction, however small.

Fr. Paul McDonald said...

Dear New Catholic, I think my post implied a very deep criticism of the Novus Ordo (may it disappear!). I was hardly saying, therfore, that you can't criticize it. Any elimination of modernism, any clearer enunciation of the faith,and, above all any more strenuous and more fervent prayer for graces is a step in the right direction, and will help hasten the healing and restoration of the Church which we all desire.

But yes, the new, new translation of the Pauline mass does not cure the problems, weaknesses and ambiguities of the original text.

As bad as that was, the old ICEL version *was even worse*. And that has been fixed.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr Howard. The changing of the translation can not be said to be an improvement inasmuch as the official "explanations" accompanying the new translations never concede the plain and simple fact that the original novel mass translations were an abomination the Hierarchy allowed to be implemented and as it is true that The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is THE most single important act Holy Mother performs daily the failure to officially apologise for forcing such novel perfidy upon the innocent Faithful is simply inexcusable.

The New Mass was the worst prudential decision taken in the entire history of Holy Mother Church and it must, MUST, be publicly repented of if God is to richly bestow His Blessings upon Holy Mother Church.

I find this pretentious pretending that all is now fine not only pathetic, I find it jejune and repulsive.

The Hierarchy must publicly apologise for the Great and Grand Theft of stealing our Spiritual Heritage and, as an act of reparation, it must, MUST, begin slowly withdrawing its support for the Novel New Mass and to,officially, in its actions, not its words, begin offering the Immemorial Mass inside of The Basilica of Saint Peter's and that Mass MUST be PUBLICLY offered by His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.

Period.

Anything short of that is just talk,,,and we Christian Catholics have had more than enough talk, and translations, and authentic this and official that for more than one-half century.

If I told my children that the Family Meal was crucial to maintaing Christian integrity in this secular world and then I took them to McDonalds and had them listen to Christian Rock on the radio on the way home in the car, what I did would render ridiculous what I proclaimed.

CV said...

@ S.J. Howard

If the effect of this new translation is to salve the symptoms, rather than cure the underlying spiritual disease (which the evidence thus far strongly suggests), then it is certainly no improvement.
It's akin to taking laudanum for acute appendicitis. I trust there's no need drawing this metaphor to its inevitable end.

To use another apropos metaphor, it's wheat vs. chaff. Here however, certain persons in the Curia are trying to genetically modify chaff to look like wheat.

The prudent course is to let each rite stand on its own underlying theology and merits, without attempting to "pretty up" that which is proving itself corrupt.

Athelstane said...

HelloTony,

There were two liturgical changes that the majority of pre-Vatican II Catholics desired: Vernacularized Masses and Mass facing the people.

I can't agree with that. Not all of it.

I concede, regretfully, that most Catholics welcomed the arrival of the mass in the vernacular. That they were loudly clamoring for it, however, is not something I have seen much evidence for. Had the Council not taken place, or had most of the mass been left in Latin...how many people would have stormed out of the Church in the 60's?

As for abandonment of ad orientem celebration, however, I really have seen no evidence of a popular demand for that at the time, certainly not beyond a small cohort of liturgical "reformists."

At any rate, while there would be perhaps no theological objection (and some pastoral advantage, perhaps) to translation of the TLM into (say) an Elizabethan/Jacobean English along the lines of the Knott Missal - though we would lose some real universality in doing so - the introduction of worship versus populorum has been a disaster of the first mangnitude, arguably (along with communion in the hand) the worst rubrical change forced on the new mass. The image of a pilgrim people all facing God, led by their priest, is lost, and what is left instead is what Joseph Ratzinger has rightly termed a kind of entertainment, a "circle closed in" on itself. Restoration of at least the Roman Canon as ad orientem would be a sine qua non of any real program of "reform of the reform." No compromise on that.

Athelstane said...

One more thing:

CFD had a potent observation up above, and it has been ignored to date. CFD speaks critically of "the attitude that we shouldn't care at all for the millions of faithful for whom the Novus Ordo is the only available liturgy. For many Catholics living in the English-speaking world today, even these modest changes to the Novus Ordo already mean a lot in the long fight for greater reverence in the liturgy. Telling them to just find the TLM or die in the wilderness is a perfect example of the attitude exemplified by "let them eat cake"."

I think this is not really fair to the Rorate authors, who in fact seem to want the (liturgical) best for those same millions of Catholics. They just don't think they can ever get it out of the N.O. in anything like its present form. It's lipstick on a pig, in this view. They hope to rescue that 99% from the theological impoverishment (or worse) that they must suffer every week. They see this as true charity.

And yet: In practice, I wonder if this attitude doesn't produce the results that CFD deplores. The reality is that the TLM is not going to supplant the N.O. next week, next year, or next decade. All things are possible with the Lord, to be sure; but while we pray and hope, we must also be realistic. Most Catholics are stuck going to the N.O., and not just because there aren't but a tiny fraction of the priests properly trained (let alone willing) to celebrate the traditional mass. (That is changing today among many of the new seminarians and priests, but we're still a long, long, long way off.)

So if, as Fr. McDonald notes, the experience that 99% have when they go to the (admittedly very defective, very flawed) N.O. is substantially (however very modestly) improved by way of a more accurate translation, it seems uncharitable not to concede as much. It took a titanic struggle to get even this very modest improvement. It will spur more serious opposition to make more fundamental reforms.

But I think this translation will connect many Catholics (at least those paying attention) a little more closely with the traditional faith...and for a few...perhaps even a slightly easier familiarity with the traditional mass if they dare to seek one out. And that's a good thing, however modest. Let us recognize as much.

Christine said...

Interestingly enough, Cardinal Burke speculates that a new rite, a fusion of the TLM and the NO, is a possibility in the future:

“It seems, to me, that what he [the Pope] has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally produce a new form of the Roman rite — the ‘reform of the reform,’ if we may — all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent.”

Edgar said...

Like we say in Mexico: “La mona aunque se vista de seda, mona se queda"

I am not Spartacus said...

The reform of the reform created by those complicit in the crime of the first revolutionary new mass is a thing to be dreaded.

Was the Immemorial Mass officially resurrected only to be killed by reform?

The totalitarian impulse of the Liturgical revolutionaries is astonishing; they have no shame; they can not leave greatness alone; they must drag it down to their own incompetent anthropocentric level.

Without question they failed miserably with the original Liturgical Revolution and every single objective measure - from Mass Attendance to Laicised Priests - confirms that plain and simple fact.

Tom said...

"Interestingly enough, Cardinal Burke speculates that a new rite, a fusion of the TLM and the NO, is a possibility in the future:"

I just read about that on Father Zuhlsdorf's blog.

Cardinal Burke said that he would welcome a new hybrid rite of Mass.

Interestingly, Father Zhulsdorf introduced the interview with Cardinal Burke with the following (these are Father Zuhlsdorf's opinions):

"The Church’s identity was dealt a massive blow with the sweeping changes to Holy Mass...

"Paul VI permitted the Consilium, the committee set up to execute the changes mandated by the Council Fathers, to go way beyond the Council’s mandates and make a staggering number of changes not actually called for by the Council.

"The result was the artificially constructed “Novus Ordo”.

"A “mutual enrichment” is desired by Pope Benedict so that our liturgical worship...can slowly reacquire the process of development which is slow, natural and organic, overcoming the abrupt, artificial and sterile impositions of the 60′s.

With that, I turn your attention now to a piece in the National Catholic Register (the good one), in which His Eminence Raymond Card. Burke speaks about the “mutual enrichment” element of Pope Benedict’s vision."
--------------------------

Please explain to me how Father Zuhlsdorf and his ilk — people (I guess that included the Pope) — who support the creation of a new hybrid rite believe that the Novus Ordo can "enhance" the Traditional Roman Mass?

Father Zhulsdorf acknowledged that the Novus Ordo "was the artificially constructed."

He acknowledged that the folowing: "The Church’s identity was dealt a massive blow with the sweeping changes to Holy Mass..."

Again, please help me to understand the notion that the "artificially constructed" Novus Ordo, which has shattered Roman Liturgical Tradition can possibly "enchance" the ancient Roman Mass?

In addition to that, why bother with a new hybrid Mass when we have the Traditional Roman Mass?

The best way to "enchance" the Novus Ordo is to cast said Mass aside via the restoration of the Traditional Roman Mass (even in the vernacular, at least while knowledge of Latin is restored to the Latin Church).

Forget about "enhancing" the Novus Ordo. Let us simply enhance Latin parishes via the Traditional Roman Mass.

Tom