Textual Changes to the Roman Missal coming First Sunday of Advent - Page 4

[PatienceAndLove]

The Church was built on Peter.  If Peter deems it appropriate to provide a corrected translation, we are to be obedient and submit.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

Depends. Some of us consider obedience to Christ, not the Vatican/magesterium, to be the real virtue.  It has become increasingly more difficult to agree with, much less be "obedient" to, an institution that is riddled with problems of their own making.

"Mother Church" is not Scriptural theology, as far as I know.  We, the collective Body of Christ on earth, are the Church.

I just don't see these two as in conflict with one another.  The Church includes all of the members and is under the authority priests, bishops, a pope, and many other people with various other positions of authority.  These aren't arbitrary authorities.  They are ordained through apostolic succession dating back to Christ himself, and while all are imperfect human beings, we have been given the promise that "the gates of hell will not prevail against" the Church.  I don't believe that this means that no individual members of the Church could go to hell.  It's very clear in many places in the Bible that hell is a possibility for all of us if we choose.  I believe that this promise applies to the official teaching body of the Church: the Magisterium.  Trigger, I'm curious as to what you think this promise means and how you reconcile it with your belief that the Vatican/Magisterium could be so wrong on so many issues.

All are charged with the duty of obedience to Christ, and, as long as what we are being asked to do is not sinful, it is a virtue to be obedient to those with God-given authority over us.  I see this as one of those cases.  Just as we go to mass at least on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, abstain from meat on Fridays in Lent, and fast for at least an hour before receiving Communion, I just don't see how I could be sinning by using this new translation.

[mamabadger]

For what it's worth, I think the reference to the Church as mother dates from St. Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century bishop) and his statement "who does not have the Church as his Mother, does not have God as his Father." I thought the metaphor fit in well with that of the Church as Christ's Bride, which does occur in Scripture.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

The Church was built on Peter.  If Peter deems it appropriate to provide a corrected translation, we are to be obedient and submit.

I don't know whether to  or  at this statement. Where does it say that this so-called "corrected translation" was ordered by Peter?

Originally Posted by JMJ 

I just don't see these two as in conflict with one another.  The Church includes all of the members and is under the authority priests, bishops, a pope, and many other people with various other positions of authority.  These aren't arbitrary authorities.  They are ordained through apostolic succession dating back to Christ himself, and while all are imperfect human beings, we have been given the promise that "the gates of hell will not prevail against" the Church.  I don't believe that this means that no individual members of the Church could go to hell.  It's very clear in many places in the Bible that hell is a possibility for all of us if we choose.  I believe that this promise applies to the official teaching body of the Church: the Magisterium.  Trigger, I'm curious as to what you think this promise means and how you reconcile it with your belief that the Vatican/Magisterium could be so wrong on so many issues.

All are charged with the duty of obedience to Christ, and, as long as what we are being asked to do is not sinful, it is a virtue to be obedient to those with God-given authority over us.  I see this as one of those cases.  Just as we go to mass at least on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, abstain from meat on Fridays in Lent, and fast for at least an hour before receiving Communion,

It is my understanding that hell is a possibility for those who freely choose to reject Christ as Savior - not those who reject Church teaching/the magesterium/etc.  "Christ as Savior" and "Catholic Doctrine" are not interchangeable terms IMO.  I believe in, and trust in, salvation through Jesus Christ's absolute and sacrificial love.

I'm not perfect, I'm not always a "good" Christian, I will freely admit that most days I do not "measure up".  However, I know that the Triune God will always meet me where I am, accept me for what I want to be, and help me to challenge myself in striving for perfection in Him.  I do not believe that it's "bad" or "wrong" to consider the teachings of the magesterium, and to question them.  It has been said that Jesus' intent was not to form a new "religion"; rather, that He was attempting to reform Judaism.  He pointed out the problematic issues with The Law, and especially with those who shoved it down others' throats without following it themselves.  (And, he was much maligned and persecuted by the "faithful" for doing so.)  The Vatican has not followed its own "laws" in revising the Roman Missal, but we are still expected to just accept it as - pun intended - gospel.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in our church's administration.  They exist, period; and they need to be acknowleged and dealt with.  Otherwise, we just continue to be the big 'ol dysfunctional family that we've become thanks to centuries of "Do as I say, not as I do."  That is not a healthy "mother-child" relationship, and that is why I have so much trouble considering the church as Mother.
 

 I just don't see how I could be sinning by using this new translation.

I never said that we are, not do I hold that position.  If there is a "sin" here, it is the sin of the magesterium ignoring their own guidelines in the revision to begin with, and then implementing the changes with the arrogant expectation of absolute submission and acceptance.  It further damages their credibility, and drives even more of the faithful to other denominations.

 

[JMJ]

So, what happened to the "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" authority that Jesus gave to Peter?  Do you think that Jesus didn't actually mean it or that it wasn't passed on to the popes that followed?  It seems pretty clear to me from the Bible that Jesus was setting up His Church, giving her a leader (with that position being a succession of leaders), and giving that leader the authority to declare certain things sinful or forgiven on earth and in heaven.  That means that if the leadership of the Church declares that something must or must not be done, then if we go against it, we are going against Christ himself.  To me, this seems like the whole basis of the Catholic faith.  I personally struggled with this and couldn't accept Confirmation until I had worked it out and accepted it.

I'm perfectly OK with a rather "liberal" definition of obedience, but I do think that it is necessary.  For my own daughter, I try to listen before making judgments, but I do have to make judgments, and they are not always the ones she would like.  It would be nice if the pope could listen to the opinions of every single Catholic in the world before making judgments, but there's too many of us.  This is where the heirarchy helps out.  In the case of this new translation, the Bishops in English-speaking countries did the bulk of the work.  This was something approved by the pope, but it wasn't that the pope made every decision by himself.  Now, I have an immense amount of trust and respect for our Church leadership, and I think that it is unlikely that they would ask us to do something terrible, but if this new translation was bad enough, we could petition to the USCCB and the Vatican itself to not use it or to alter it to be more acceptable.  If enough people did this, the leadership of the Church would listen.  They have certainly done so and are continuing to do so for those who objected to the changes made after Vatican II.  The pre-Vatican II mass has been given the honor of being designated as the "Extraordinary Form" of the Roman Rite, and some of the changes made after Vatican II are being questioned.  It takes time, and the proper way to do it is with respect, patience, and obedience.  Be obedient to the changes required while participating in any petitioning, and respect and obey the judgment from Church leadership.  I don't think that this new translation is bad enough to reject, but I could be open to more refinement over time.

I am curious, Trigger.  How did the magesterium fail to follow their own guidelines?

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

I don't know whether to  or  at this statement. Where does it say that this so-called "corrected translation" was ordered by Peter?

I was being poetic and referring to Pope Benedict XVI as Peter
 

Quote:

It is my understanding that hell is a possibility for those who freely choose to reject Christ as Savior - not those who reject Church teaching/the magesterium/etc.  "Christ as Savior" and "Catholic Doctrine" are not interchangeable terms IMO.  I believe in, and trust in, salvation through Jesus Christ's absolute and sacrificial love.

If you reject Christ's Bride, aren't you also rejecting Christ- who insituted the Church, sent His Holy Spirit to guide it, and is His eternal Bride?

I never said that we are, not do I hold that position.  If there is a "sin" here, it is the sin of the magesterium ignoring their own guidelines in the revision to begin with, and then implementing the changes with the arrogant expectation of absolute submission and acceptance.  It further damages their credibility, and drives even more of the faithful to other denominations.
 

What guidelines are they "ignoring"?  And what about those who suffered at the hands of those implementing things post Vatican II- things that weren't even part of the documents?

[PatienceAndLove]

http://www.franciscan.edu/News/2011/Serratelli_New_Translation_Closer_to_Scripture/

Liturgy Expert Says New Translation More Closely Aligned to Scripture

    

However, through the current mode of translation, much closer attention is paid to the rich vocabulary of the Latin liturgy. It shows a greater respect for the scriptural and patristic (relating to the early Christian theologians) allusions in the Latin text. This translation is more literal, but unearths both spiritual and biblical richness, Bishop Serratelli explained.

The prayers of the new texts are not casual, but honor God in a noble language, worthy of him.

"The goal of the arrangement is to provide prayers that are focused, that are unadorned, and that are thoughtful without being over-burdened," Bishop Serratelli said. "In one continuous thought, our heart pours itself out to God, without interruption, directly and simply begging God's help."

"By using the exact words, nothing is lost in the meaning, but a sense of poetry is gained, and we are using the very words of Scripture itself," he explained.

[moonshoes]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

It is my understanding that hell is a possibility for those who freely choose to reject Christ as Savior - not those who reject Church teaching/the magesterium/etc.  "Christ as Savior" and "Catholic Doctrine" are not interchangeable terms IMO.  I believe in, and trust in, salvation through Jesus Christ's absolute and sacrificial love.

Christ as Savior gave us the Church to bring us to salvation. Sola Scriptura is a protestant doctrine, not Roman Catholic.

I'm not perfect, I'm not always a "good" Christian, I will freely admit that most days I do not "measure up".  However, I know that the Triune God will always meet me where I am, accept me for what I want to be, and help me to challenge myself in striving for perfection in Him.  I do not believe that it's "bad" or "wrong" to consider the teachings of the magesterium, and to question them.  It has been said that Jesus' intent was not to form a new "religion"; rather, that He was attempting to reform Judaism.  He pointed out the problematic issues with The Law, and especially with those who shoved it down others' throats without following it themselves.  (And, he was much maligned and persecuted by the "faithful" for doing so.)  The Vatican has not followed its own "laws" in revising the Roman Missal, but we are still expected to just accept it as - pun intended - gospel.

Jesus came for our salvation. He was God, not a political figure trying to bring about a new Judaism. He was not pointing out problematic issues with the Law, he was trying to bring all of us to the Kingdom of God. I have often heard some try to compare the Holy See to the Pharisees, and it is beyond ridiculous. 

There's nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in our church's administration.  They exist, period; and they need to be acknowleged and dealt with.  Otherwise, we just continue to be the big 'ol dysfunctional family that we've become thanks to centuries of "Do as I say, not as I do."  That is not a healthy "mother-child" relationship, and that is why I have so much trouble considering the church as Mother.
 

I find it repugnant that any Catholic would call the Holy Father a church "administrator." Jesus created the Church with Peter as it's head. Obviously, the beauty of apostolic succession is part of the great strength of Holy Mother Church. Indeed, the 2000 year history of the Church should be enough to show how the Holy Spirit works in and through Holy Mother Church. Perhaps the Protestants, with their hundreds of spinoffs,  a new church created whenever someone thinks they know best, would be an example of what happens when human weakness supercedes Jesus' gifts to the first apostles.

I never said that we are, not do I hold that position.  If there is a "sin" here, it is the sin of the magesterium ignoring their own guidelines in the revision to begin with, and then implementing the changes with the arrogant expectation of absolute submission and acceptance.  It further damages their credibility, and drives even more of the faithful to other denominations.

The problem lies with an inability to submit and accept, not with the Holy Father. I believe your assumption is incorrect. I believe the changes will bring people back to the church. 

[PatienceAndLove]

4 Spiritual Tips To Help You Adapt To The New Catholic Mass

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-deturris-poust/adapting-to-the-new-mass_b_1033080.html

Whatever side of the fence you're on, the changes are less than one month away. It's time to adapt and move forward. The new translation of the Roman Missal will go into effect on the first Sunday of Advent, November 27, which is the beginning of the Church year for Catholics.

 But, if we approach the changes with an open mind and, more importantly, an open heart, we just might find our connection to the Mass reinvigorated for the first time in years, something Catholics in this country could sorely use.

Learning the new language, responding to the priest in a different way, using new physical gestures--all of it will require some attention to detail. That can be a very good thing for our spiritual lives because whenever we have to stop and reflect on the words we say and the meaning behind things we once took for granted, we can't help but enter more deeply into our faith. Even when we're annoyed by a change, it forces us to confront the "Why?" and get to the heart of what we really believe. And that's never a bad thing.

[lilyka]

Quote:

Looks like a better translation of the original Greek to me.  :)

Originally Posted by Trigger 

 Actually, the whole purpose was to make everything a better translation of the Latin.  And to make better references to Scripture in the liturgical prayers.
 

But since these both come the Liturgy of St John Chrysostomos the Greek and the Latin should both translate the same in English.

I am still thing to wrap my head around why this is such a big deal.  

[Trigger]

Interesting article from NCR: http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/16-year-old-latin-whiz-finds-new-liturgy-language-lacking

Ultimately, the whole affair just begs the question of why the Latin Mass has any particular spiritual significance. It's certainly not Scripture, and it's often just an amalgamation of various communal prayers used throughout Europe for several centuries. In fact, many early bishops would write their own Masses or translations to best fit their community's needs. And that's the essence of Mass. The reason why we come to Mass in the first place rather than just praying by ourselves is the interaction with others that has spiritual importance. In the Mass the people become the Body of Christ, conceived as the organic whole Paul writes about in the famous passage from 1 Corinthians: “for the body is not one member, but many.”

The problem with the new translation and indeed the notion of a codified Latin Mass at all is that it destroys the communal and egalitarian nature of the act.

[Trigger]

Thank goodness we are truly one in the Eucharist, and that we don't rely on words for our communal spirit.  It's like the Tower of Babel all over again, LOL. 

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

Thank goodness we are truly one in the Eucharist, and that we don't rely on words for our communal spirit.  It's like the Tower of Babel all over again, LOL. 

What does that even mean?

I LOVE the new translation- and I have yet to hear from anyone I actually KNOW IRL that they dislike it.  I have heard "It will take some getting used to", but nothing like what I have seen posted on this thread or on certain websites.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove 

I LOVE the new translation-

And I wouldn't expect any less from you, dear.

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

And I wouldn't expect any less from you, dear.

I am taking that as a compliment :-D

[lilyka]

So now that you guys have a couple of weeks, what do you think?

[Trigger]

It's about what I'd expected.

[Trigger]

A perfect summation:

It all feels like a solution in search of a problem. Happily, the Catholic Church has no other problems to deal with.

Vatican Vandalism: The New English Translation of the Catholic Mass

Will this make more Catholics love the Mass? I doubt it. It will make more conservative Catholics happy. And that seems to be a decided inclination in the present administration's ease at stepping around the Second Vatican Council's teachings to appease those far right of center.

Nevertheless, this new translation of the Mass is obtuse, inelegant and, ultimately, unnecessary.

[JMJ]

I was actually really enjoying the elegance of the new Creed yesterday (With an extra toddler with me at Mass, it was one of the only new parts I really was able to pay attention to since the kids required more and more attention as the Mass went on), and I really can't wait for the new Gloria in Christmas.  It just seems so much more... well... glorious!  I haven't liked most of the new or revised musical Mass settings, but our music directors have chosen one that is really quite beautiful.

As far as making the adjustments is concerned, it's happening, and our priests are being quite patient with us.  Fr. began Mass with a joke about everybody saying "and also with your spirit" and then was immediately greeted with "and also with you" by about half the congregation.... followed by silence and a few giggles.  "It's only the second week," he stated encouragingly.  Old habits die hard.  As I realized yesterday, I need to just memorize all the new responses since I can't hold a cheat sheet and a squirming toddler very well at the same time.  I've missed the "and with your spirit" for the response before the Gospel every time so far.  For some reason, the cheat sheets that our parish has in the pews doesn't have that one, just has that you're supposed to respond with "Glory to you, O Lord," which is what I was originally taught anyway.

Everyone is trying to stay patient, but I'm looking forward to getting this stumbling phase over with so that we can make these new words more of a prayer... I mean... of course we're praying even as we stumble.  I've learned that in my prayer life as a mom... that no matter how distracted I am as I do my best to pray while meeting my child's needs... God knows I'm trying and accepts the best that I can give.  It's just more comfortable when it comes more easily.

[PatienceAndLove]

I think it is beautiful and far better than the old translation.  Far and away a better way to address the Creator of the Universe.

I still think that the Anglican-Use is the best English Mass, though.