Sat 30th Aug 2014 | Last updated: Fri 29th Aug 2014 at 16:54pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Priests should rejoice at the greater accuracy of the new translation

Instead of huffing and puffing about the new English translation of the Mass, priests should instruct their parishioners on why it is a good thing

By on Monday, 11 April 2011

An altar copy of the new Mass translation CNS

An altar copy of the new Mass translation CNS

A vigilant friend has alerted me to an open letter to priests entitled: “Revising the Mass texts: Is this the real issue?” posted on The Tablet website on March 31. Written by an Edinburgh priest, Fr Mike Fallon, and going under the headline, “Let us keep the ‘1973 rite’ of the Mass on”, it is over-long, rambling and querulous in tone. (Mind you, this is The Tablet website so I should not expect such a “Letter” to be short, concise and full of zeal for the magisterium.)

According to Fr Fallon, the real issue has nothing to do with the revised texts of the Mass that will replace the inaccurate translation that we have been lumbered with for 40 years; it is all to do with authority.

He talks about “the process which has brought this new translation to fruition”, going on to state, “It is no secret that many people worldwide are unhappy, to say the least, about the New English Missal and perhaps, more importantly, how it came to be produced.” He grumbles on about the revised texts “never [having] been authorised by the English-speaking bishops of the world, in accordance with their established responsibilities”; worries whether “the Scottish bishops are aware of the authoritative role they have in virtue of their office for introducing a new translation to the people of the country”; believes the whole process of the improved translation (he puts the word improved in quote marks, which speaks for itself) “constitutes a grave disservice to the people of God”; is convinced that “it goes against not only the spirit of the second Vatican Council but indeed it goes against its very letter and runs counter to the clear teaching of that Council”; and ruminates that “It is tempting as a priest in a parish to ignore the new translation and carry on with life.”

There is much more in the same vein and I cannot quote it all, but I think that I have conveyed the flavour of Fr Fallon’s discontent. I find his letter puzzling, disturbing and dispiriting. I have great reverence for the priesthood; indeed, I pray for all priests every day. At the same time I feel greatly irritated by the person of Fr Fallon.

I am puzzled that he does not rejoice in the greater accuracy of the new translation. As we pray, so we believe; and if the beauty and truth of the wording of the liturgy has been blunted by a poor, 40-year-old translation, so in a subtle way, has our belief. I am disturbed by his rebellious attitude.

Surely his task is to be obedient to his bishop (and his bishop’s task, to implement the New English Missal, along with the other English-speaking bishops around the world)? I am dispirited by his peddling the dreary phrase, “the spirit of the Second Vatican Council”, as if that dubious and elusive spectre has anything to do with the workings of the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t; the sooner it is buried with a stake through its heart and garlic round the doorposts, the better.

As a result of reading Fr Fallon’s letter, I have treated myself to a crash course in the new translation of the Mass, courtesy of the estimable Fr Zuhlsdorf and his weekly column in the Catholic Herald. (How come I missed this treat? Good can always come from bad, so thank you Fr Fallon, for leading me indirectly to Fr Zuhlsdorf’s wisdom and sanity.) I won’t quote “Fr Zee”, a celebrated blogger on liturgical themes, as I am sure other Herald readers will know his columns better than I do.

I just wish Fr Fallon would stop huffing and puffing and giving us his own Hibernian version of “Non serviam”. He should read Fr Zee and then, when the times comes, properly instruct his parishioners – for whom he is directly responsible – on the reasons why the new English translation is a good thing.

  • Anonymous

    This extract says it all:

    “I am puzzled that he does not rejoice in the greater accuracy of the new translation. As we pray, so we believe; and if the beauty and truth of the wording of the liturgy has been blunted by a poor, 40-year-old translation, so in a subtle way, has our belief.”

    The bottom line here is that the Scots clergy – like our bishops – don’t hold to the Faith as it is expressed in the new translation – which is really the “old” translation.

    Speak to them about the Traditional Mass and you see the utter hatred spew out. This is the reality. Priests and bishops hold to an ecumenical/inter-religious “faith” of sorts, not the Catholic Faith in its entirety and purity. I say “bishops” as well because Fr Fallon could not have written that Open Letter for publication in an international publication like the Tablet without the – at least implicit – approval of his Ordinary, Cardinal O’Brien.

    But Fr Fallon makes a monumental blunder in his letter, when he says that the process of introducing a new translation must include the bishops. Even the liberal Vatican II confirmed the ancient teaching of the Church that Peter is the Supreme Pontiff, and he, alone, has the authority to command and rule the Church, without the approval or assent of anyone, bishops included – see paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium.

    Astonishing that any priest would not know this. As a Scot, I have to add “especially in the capital city of Scotland.”

  • Pastor in Valle

    Hibernian? Why blame Scottish problems on the Irish, who have enough problems of our own?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Purdie/1162381995 Ken Purdie

    It would seem that Clergy who dislike the forthcoming translation have axes to grind with their Bishops. This is certainly the case in Ireland, where a vocal minority have posted objections. But I feel that the faithfull should not be punished because of this. Even if their Ordinaries are in the wrong about specific issues.
    There is an awful blog called “pray tell” where a lot of these people post, mostly American, again with liberal views on any subject you care to mention. I cannot bear to open this site any longer, it is so depressing.
    I would venture that in common with others of this ilk, the problem lies with Fr Fallon and not the translation.

  • Timorous beastie

    It seems strange to read the comments from EditorCT in which she refers to criticisms made about the new translation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Why? Because her website provides a link to:
    ‘62 reasons why Catholics cannot, in good conscience, attend the new Mass’.
    So why is she bothering about a spat concerning changes to some of the words used when she does not even appear to recognise the validity of the Ordinary Form in the first place?

    We can also find the following statement on the CatholicTruthScotland website:
    “Keeping the Faith entails reminding ourselves of what is and is not authentic Catholic doctrine. It means comparing what is being taught now, by popes, bishops and priests, with what has always been taught, to
    enable us to recognise false teaching when we read or hear it and to avoid falling into error.”
    It is clear that this particular CTS would want us to believe that not only priests and bishops but also Popes are guilty of “false teaching”.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Of course we are interested in the development of the new and getting newer by the minute, New Mass.
    You are disingenuous to say that we have said the new Mass (all of them!) is “invalid.” Not true. We agree with the observations of the famous Liturgical Scholar, Monsignor Klaus Gamber (1919-1989). Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger said in the well-known preface to the French translation of Gamber’s most famous book, Die Reform der römischen Liturgie (The Reform of the Roman Rite):

    “What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced — as if in a technical production — by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true visionary and with the fearlessness of a true witness, opposed this falsification and tirelessly taught us the living fullness of a true liturgy, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge of the sources. As a man who knew and who loved history, he showed us the multiple forms of the evolution and of the path of the liturgy; as a man who saw history from the inside, he saw in this development and in the fruit of this development the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, which is not the object of our action, but which may marvelously continue to blossom and to ripen, if we join its mystery intimately.”

    On “invalidity” Klaus Gamber said this: “One thing is certain: the new (liberal) theology was a major force behind the liturgical reforms. (A good example of this is the German hymnal, Praising God.) Yet to assert, as is sometimes done, that the Novus Ordo Mass is “invalid” would be taking this argument too far. What we can say is that ever since the liturgical reforms were introduced, the number of invalid Masses certainly has increased.”
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2007/07/motu-proprio-notes-remembering-klaus.html

    I choose to attend a Mass that safeguards against the possibility of invalidity. What’s the problem?

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Hear, hear!

    But remember, Fr Fallon is speaking the mind of the bishops – has to be. He’s never going to go public on this or anything else, if he thinks his Ordinary won’t approve. Any more than another Edinburgh-based priest, Fr Ed Hone of unhappy memory (he’s now in England, God help them) would have writte letters to the Scotsman attacking Archbishop Conti for siding with the firemen who refused to distribute pro-”gay” literature during the Gay Pride march some years ago. Nor would Fr Hone have run a Quest (“gay”) group in his parish if he thought Cardinal O’Brien would not approve.

    We need to always take care not to shoot the messengers. The messengers – dissident clergy – all too often speak the mind of the bishops. We saw it when Summorum Pontificum hit the episcopal doormats and the then rector of the Scots seminary (now – tellingly – closed) said that it would not be happening in Scotland, we are all, apparently, very happy with the (then) new liturgy, even if now, we’re not going to be quite so happy with the even newer liturgy….

    These priests are speaking the minds of the bishops – never forget that. We are in de facto schism in Scotland and in the rest of the UK – that’s a fact.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    Well, if we blame anyone else, they’ll sue!

    ps if I ever have to change my user name, I’ll choose “Half-of-me-is-Irish-but-don’t-blame-me!”

  • Jamie

    Um – something in the prefix before Conti slightly undermines your point about the backing of the bishops for what Fr Ed Hone was doing.

  • Anonymous

    Um, not at all, Jamie. One of the problems we have in our line of work of alerting the faithful to the crisis in the Church, is that every now and again the bishops hit the headlines for the right reasons – usually on the subject of abortion (as a journalist once said to me “an easy topic, where you expect a bishop to hold a particular view.”) There can be all sort of reasons for it, but in this case, it is difficult to work out (there were no red hats to be had, as far as I can recall!)

    This was one of those occasions when I had a string of emails and phone calls to the effect that “it’s all right now – all over, no more crisis, Archbishop Conti upholds the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.”
    Except, that’s not what he did at all, in fact.

    Justice for the firefighters, was his watchword – see for yourself http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5304524.stm (and note his comment about conscience over obedience – which truth, reflect, he fails to apply to Archbishop Lefebvre.)

    Thus, when Fr Ed Hone attacked the Archbishop in defence of “gay” rights, we get a flavour of the worsening nature and extent of this crisis. Fr Hone needn’t have worried, though, because the same Archbishop who defended the rights of the firefighters to act as they did and not hand out “gay” literature (because it went against their consciences, not because it went against God’s moral law), also allows Masses for the members of Quest, an organisation for LGBT Catholics, in St Simon’s parish, with use of the hall afterwards for socialising purposes. The Archbishop’s conscience, it seems, works from a different point of reference, that do the consciences of those firemen.

    Fr Hone, on another occasion, publicly rebuked Bishop Devine of Motherwell for saying “gay” teachers could not teach in Catholic schools, if they were living with a homosexual partner. And no sooner was Fr Hone’s ink dry on the page when his Ordinary, Cardinal O’Brien, said in a newspaper interview that he had no problem at all with “gay” teachers, even with partners, teaching in Catholic schools. A Cardinal and one of his priests publicly contradicting another bishop on a matter of Catholic sexual morality? Hello?

    None of this is breaking news. It is, in fact, all of it, a matter of public record. In summary, we’re in a mess.

    Does that make it clearer, for you, Jamie? What is it, 7 / 10 ; 8 / 10 / 9 / 10 – or am I top of the class?

  • W Oddie

    The point about the translation we have been (quite right) “lumbered” with is that it’s not just inaccurate (that might be just sloppiness) it’s that it has its own theologically reductionist agenda. This (underlining other modernist influences) has had a disastrous effect on the faith of the English-speaking Churches. The new translation is part of the fightback which i believe may now be getting under way. It will all take time: but we’re on our way, please God.

  • Timorous beastie

    I merely pointed out that your website has a link to “‘62 reasons why Catholics cannot, in good conscience, attend the new Mass’ and wondered, on the basis of that link, why you were bothering about a spat concerning some of the words used in that Mass. It would appear to me, and you can tell me I am wrong if you like, and can demonstrate it, that putting that link there is an indication that you support what it says. And note that it says “the new Mass” and not “the new Mass as it is said in some churches”. I would suggest that any reasonable interpretation of the statement ‘62 reasons why Catholics cannot, in good conscience, attend the new Mass’ refers to the new Mass per se and not just to the new Mass as it is said in some places.

    So a few direct questions:
    Do you recognize that the Ordinary Form of the Mass, as it now stands, can ever be a valid form of the Mass. In other words, to make this is as plain as possible, do you recognize that the Mass celebrated by the Pope at Bellahouston was a valid Mass?
    If the answers to these questions is ‘Yes’ then why do you have a link on your website to ‘62 reasons why Catholics cannot, in good conscience, attend the new Mass’.
    Do you agree with the statement that ‘Catholics cannot, in good conscience, attend the new Mass’?

  • Petrus

    I hope no one minds me umping in here.

    I don’t attend the New Mass anymore. Do I think it is valid? Certainly, it can be valid. However, given that it is open to so many abuses, there is certainly a risk. Yes, I do think the Pope’s Mass was valid.

    I don’t attend the New Mass because of the history. It’s architect was a suspected Freemason – Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. Before anyone starts trying to dispute this fact, consider this: the Vatican have NEVER denied that Bugnini was a Freemason. Don’t you find that strange? You would think that the Vatican would be eager to clear the name of it’s favoured son! Another thought: why was Bugnini exiled to Iran as Apostolic Pro Nuncio? Why was he never created Cardinal? Strange, don’t you think?

    It was Bugnini’s intention to destroy the Roman Rite. This is what he said when taking on the task of wiritng the Novus Ordo:

    ““We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” – Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965. Presumably, this is why six Protestaant ministers helped to write the Novus Ordo.

    Father Joseph Gelineau SJ, a Council peritus, and an enthusiastic proponent of the postconciliar revolution said in his book Demain la liturgie, “To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

    I’ve also read “The Ottaviani Intervention”, written by Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci. The Study contained a cover letter signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, which warned that the Novus Ordo, “represents both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent”.

    For all these reasons (and more), I cannot in good conscience attend the Novus Ordo. Even in it’s purest form, without the plethora of abuses that go along with it, it is still essentially a protestantised Rite, as the evidence given above proves. Remember, Pope VI only meant this Rite of Mass to be an option. The Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council stated that:

    “In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity, that she wishes to preserve them in future and foster them in every way.”

    I opt out.

  • Anonymous

    Petrus below has answered you in great detail and I endorse every word he says, so I need not repeat everything but simply address your questions in essence here:

    1) Yes – as I keep saying – I do not claim that the new Mass is always invalid. I agree with the great liturgist Klaus Gamber, endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, that there is no question that we have more invalid Masses now than before.

    2) I would definitely presume that the Pope’s Mass (whether at Bellahouston or anywhere else) was/is a valid Mass.

    3) 62 Questions.. is an objective document. It is a study of the differences between the two Masses, objectively. Taken objectively – looking at the facts – I believe that informed Catholics cannot, in good conscience, attend the new Mass. I attended it myself in bad conscience for quite a long time. I knew it was created as Petrus describes before, yet I continued to attend. People do so for all sorts of reasons, but I firmly believe that, once educated about the genesis and nature of the New Mass, it is not possible – unless one’s conscience is dulled or dead – to attend the New Mass in good faith. So, yes, I agree with the statement that “Catholics cannot, in good conscience, attend the New Mass” once they are educated about it. Obviously,people who go along in ignorance (and there are plenty) are in good faith – they are in our sights every time we publish the newsletter aimed at alerting Catholics to the roots, nature and extent of the crisis in the Church.

    I hope my responses, together with Petrus’s excellent post below, serve to answer your concerns.

    PS I am interested in the new translation because I believe it is a step in the right direction – another sign that the new Mass is on the way out. We work and pray for the restoration of the Mass that the martyrs gave their lives for. Sooner rather than later. It’s because they DON’T want that, that rebellious priests like Fr Fallon are fighting against these latest changes.

  • Petrus

    A wise woman once told me that once I had attended the Traditional Mass for six weeks or so, I would find it almost impossible to go back to the New Mass. A great piece of advice and I urge everyone to try it.

  • Anonymous

    I like the sound of her! Is she also slim, witty, glamorous and extremely intelligent?

  • Timorous beastie

    Sorry, but you seem to want to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand you agree that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is valid but on the other you think that ‘educated’ and ‘informed’ people cannot in conscience attend it. That seems like an attempt to make a square into a circle.

    As for Petrus he can “ump” in as much as he likes but his opinions are rather irrelevant as his views were not in question.

    As for the lady who suggests that we try the Extraordinary Form for six weeks, well I’ve been going to the EF for far longer than six months and intend to continue to do so but that doesn’t stop me going to the Ordinary Form as well.

  • Petrus

    Timorous Beastie,
    What do you make of the evidence the editor and I have provided on the origins of the Novus Ordo? I note you have chosen to pick up on a typing error, rather than respond to the hard facts. Interesting. I’ll look forward to your response…

  • Anonymous

    As Petrus says below, please respond to the facts about the genesis of the New Mass. Do you CARE that it was created by a Freemason with the help of six Protestant Ministers, with the express purpose of removing anything objectionable to Protestants? Answer please.

    Also, don’t twist my words and ignore the facts. I quoted Klaus Gamber saying that there is certainly an increase in invalid Masses now since the introduction of the new Mass. I won’t attend a Mass that MAY be invalid. You clearly are not too bothered, as your silence on the origins of the new Mass suggests.

    The fact that you speak of the EF suggests you are attending one of the diocesan TLMs which means you are not really getting the whole picture.

    Attend an SSPX chapel for six months and then tell us that you intend to continue with the Bugnini Mass.

  • Timorous beastie

    Typing error? What typing error? If you’ve noticed a typing error you’ve done better than me.

    If I ask A for her opinion then it is of little use if B tells me his opinion. However, Editor CT says that to know more about her opinion I should read what you have to say.

    Now, if I read EditorCT correctly, she believes that a Mass in the Ordinary Form is perfectly valid. She did not say so but from what she says I take it that she accepts that any Catholic may carry out his/her Sunday obligation by attending a Mass in the Ordinary Form. So far so good. Her problem seems to be not in the actual form of the Mass but with a number of ‘liturgical abuses’ which she says are sometimes committed during such Masses.

    Now, here’s the problem. You refer to the Ottaviani Intervention. The Ottaviani Intervention was written in 1969 before any priest said a single Mass in the Ordinary Form so the Cardinals’ objections cannot have had anything to do with any ‘liturgical abuses’ which have been carried out since the Ordinary Form Mass was introduced. Anyone who reads the Intervention can see that it is a series of objections about the Mass itself, not with ‘liturgical abuses’ carried out since its introduction. It would therefore seem that anybody who uses the Ottaviani Intervention as an objection to the OF Mass objects to the Mass itself.

    Similarly, you say: “Even in it’s purest form, without the plethora of abuses that go along with it, it is still essentially a protestantised Rite”. That, to me, suggests that you, and by implication EditorCT too, rejects the Mass itself and not just the (unspecified) liturgical abuses which it is claimed accompany some OF Masses. (Incidentally, I would not dispute that there are liturgical abuses which accompany some OF Masses but that is not the issue. The only issue I raised was whether, in the opinion of Editor CT, such Masses are valid.)

    Now referring to the views or character of someone as an argument against something is known as an ‘ad hominen’ attack. (As in: You can’t trust climate sceptics because they are all funded by the oil industry.) Ad hominen arguments are not arguments which I accept. The only arguments I would consider are arguments about the actual thing itself. This may be totally irrelevant but is it a bit like saying that the Sacraments are valid because they are administered by an ordained priest, irrespective of the moral character of that priest? Or that Pope XXX was still a valid Pope even though he had a mistress and umpteen children?

    As for SSPX Masses! Let’s not go down that road. That’s another argument altogether and not one I am going to get into.

  • crouchback

    You’re …BOTH…. wrong. That was ME that your quoting, word for word. I’ve been saying that to my wife for the last 20 odd years.You both got that direct from me….and don’t forget it. I’ll have a cup of tea and an orange club from each of you by way of reparation.

    She is a woman, ( some men don’t have women wives these days, I’m not of their number ) it has only taken her 22 years to get to know the Mass of the Ages. Now she gets what I was telling her about the first six weeks.

    Good News folks….six weeks and all your liturgical worries are over.

    1:Find your nearest Traditional Latin Mass.

    2: Get a Latin English missal, Barronius Press have an excellent one for around £35

    3: Go to the Ordinary of the mass, read and try and follow the mass as the priest says it. I never bother with the Latin….I only ever follow the English, though one day I’d love to lear the Latin.

    4: After Mass pull all your hair out, jump up and own, swear you’ll become an atheist, take to strong drugs.

    5: One week on Sunday later repeat steps 3 & 4.

    6: oOne week after that repeat steps 3 & 4 & 5…..

    7:Can you tell what it is yet….????

    8: Yes that’s right, your Catholic faith is starting to well up fresh like a Geen blade rising after a nuclear winter

    9: Six weeks later….weep for joy….you wont believe how going to mass could be so much fun, and joy and deeply spiritual…..go on…buy that missal

    10: after 12 weeks if your still not satisfied it’s because you forgot to stop the strong drugs…send me your missal and I’ll refund your £35. Go on you know it makes sense …

  • Petrus

    You’ve lost the place here. The problem is bigger than the umpteen liturgical abuses. The problem is that the Novus Ordo was written by a freemason and six Protestant ministers. I have given you plenty of references and quotes to support my position. So let me ask some more direct questions:

    Are you happy to attend a Mass that was invented by a Freemason and Protestant ministers?
    Are you happy to attend a Mass specifically written with Protestants in mind?

    Yes, the Novus Ordo may be a valid Mass. Having said thatt it’s a bit like going to the doctor with an infection and the doctor says to you, “I could give you this medicine which will clear up your infection immediately, but take this instead. It’s still medicine, but might clear up the infection and it might not.” A bowl of soup with a drop of poison is still a bowl of soup. But it’s not going to be good for you., is it?

  • Anonymous

    But you are NOT reading me correctly. I said clearly that once we know the genesis of the new Mass we cannot really attend in good conscience. I should have added “regularly” – as the norm. I have and probably will in future, reluctantly attended novus ordo weddings and funerals and, presuming I am allowed to kneel and receive on the tongue from a priest, (and assuming there is no major liturgical abuse beyond those now institutionalized) I may receive Holy Communion. But not on a regular basis – that I cannot do in good conscience. Exceptionally and reluctantly, yes. Not regularly. And I will make a spiritual Communion rather than a sacramental Communion if I have any serious doubts about the validity of a particular Mass. For example, if I were to hear the priest who says (as one priest in Glasgow says) “I will now break the bread” after the alleged Consecration, I would most certainly not approach for what is clearly merely bread.

    It’s not just about liturgical abuses as I’ve said over and over again. It’s about knowing that this is the Mass created by a Freemason, specifically to please Protestants. You clearly cannot grasp this as is evidenced in your comments about the Ottaviani Intervention. The Cardinals who signed the Ottaviani Intervention did so because, as it says in their famous Intervention, this new Mass is, “in whole and in part, a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass.” That’s about as clear as it gets.

    It spoils weddings and funerals for me, having to attend it. I won’t let it spoil every Sunday.

  • crouchback

    Mass in the Ordinary Form is valid…if the priest says the mass as laid down in the liturgical Books…no more, no less…. but, where does that happen…???

    Every parish has it’s own Rite, it’s own rubrics….some even seem, as far as I can see from various sources, their own particular sexual orientation of the parties involved…..how weird is that…???

    I bet my house right here, right now, that not only will there be wide spread dissension over the New Translation. At least 80% of priests will morph their own personal Rite and Rubrics in to the New Translation, muck it about and in no time at all the work of the translators will be lost…..we’ll have the lame mass of the pig ignorant, back in no time flat.

    As for Bugnini, Malcolm Muggeridge said that the Germans during World War I, sent Lenin in a sealed train in to Russia ….”like a bacillus” ….Look what happened to Russia …???

    Bugnini was removed from his post in the Vatican, for whatever reason, he was sent to Iran in mid 1976, on 1st February 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini arrived back in Iran…what a triumph for post Vatican II ecumenism …???. Iran before 1976 might not have been in the best of health…..has the patient recovered yet…????

    No, the bacillus is still at work. Kill Bugnins mass, reform the Church, convert Iran……Simples.

    Next…..!!!!!

  • crouchback

    Why should it….”Take Time”….???

    What if your house was on fire and you phoned 999 screaming for the fire brigade….Sharon or Tracey or Julian or Sandy answers your call and says the Fire Brigade will attend to your emergency…..”But it will take time”….you’d be outraged would you not…!!!

    All a priest needs do is go to the Internet, copy and paste the English bits from the Traditional Mass, print the same in whatever numbers and as Fr Z says say the Black….do the Red……

    Come on how simple can it get. How many people of average intelligence in the average parish can’t read plain English…???

    Any body could do that….but not anybody ….WANTS TO DO THAT….. the average priest won’t do it, because he see’s himself as some sort of Guru leading his people in the ways of sanctity….with his own Personal Rite and his own chorographed liturgical dancing and faffing about that would make Bruce Forsyth blush.

  • Timorous beastie

    “The problem is bigger than the umpteen liturgical abuses.”

    Well that’s a straight answer to a straight question (I think). There’s something wrong with the Mass itself. Presumably that therefore applies to the Mass celebrated by the Pope in Bellahouston Park.

    The only snag is that you weren’t asked for your opinion. And as I keep repeating when one person is asked their opinion it is useless someone else coming along and saying what their opinion is. If I asked you your opinion of Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony and X comes along and tells me his opinion that might be very interesting but it’s not what I asked. X can tell me all about the origins of the symphony but it’s not what I asked. X can tell me where Beethoven got his inspiration from but it’s not what I asked. X can tell me why he thinks that Mozart was a better composer than Beethoven but it’s not what I asked.

    As for my opinion, it’s totally irrelevant. Why should my opinion be of any importance? I’m not here to defend anything. I merely asked a question. To which I keep getting conflicting answers.

    By the way I’m still intrigued about this mysterious typing error. Please tell me what it was. As I’m accused of picking on it I’d really like to know what it was. Seriously.

  • Susan

    Many of us would IF there was an available Tridentine Mass!

  • Irene.

    Would if we could! Try living outside Glasgow or Edinburgh! We had a “clandestine” TM last week which reminded me of penal times!

  • Anonymous

    Well, Irene, get yourself back to civilization (Glasgow) without delay, wummin!

    Can you tell us the gory details about the clandestine TLM ( I know it wouldn’t be “clandestine” any more, but what the heck.)

    Spill!

  • Bridget

    It took me awhile to return to the Tridentine Mass after a complete loss of faith during the changes of VAT2..
    I have now realised the true beauty of the Rite I grew up. The lack of reverence in the NO mass is due to the loss of the mystery and numinous quality of the TM.
    When we read the opening prayers in English “I will go unto the altar of God”
    “The God of my youth and my joy” it is time to lift up our minds to God and know that something holy is about to take place.”
    The words of the Mass are straight from the psalms and the scriptures and the fact that it is the priest who becomes the victim is emphasised by his facing the cross and the altar as he gives himself to the Father and as we see him giving his life we share in that re-enactment of the sacrifice.
    Unfortunately this does not come across with the priest facing us, likely to be distracted very often, and the Mass quoted as being a supper shared on a table as the priests so often say, completly nullifies the true meaning of the Mass.
    For more information about the meaning and rite of Pope Pius V’s Mass of all time, I recommend “The Holy Mass” by Dom Prosper Gueranger Baronius Press.

  • Michel Roi

    I always marveled at how much more beautiful the Eucharistic prayers of the Novus Ordo are in French than in English. That’s not because I’m an ultra nationalist Franco-Canadian who is convinced of the superiority of French over English (OK, I admit, I think French sounds nicer). It is WHAT the prayers say in French that makes them more beautiful and meaningful. Recently at a workshop I attended, a priest explained that during the 1970′s English translators (of the liturgy) didn’t strive to be accurate but rather “dynamic” (!). Other language groups in the Church strove to translate accurately from the Latin. For French this is easy because it is derived directly from Latin. There is much to be said for language that is beautiful, poetic and different from that used for ordinary conversation. I am glad for the fact that those assisting at English language Masses will soon be able to worship in something more elevated and timeless than what, in the 70′s, was regarded as “dynamic” speech.

  • Ruth1512

    I have read the new translation and find a lot of it lacks warmth. The one we use now is much better.

  • Anonymous

    “Warmth”? That’s a new angle. Worshipping God isn’t about “warmth” – it’s about truth, dignity and a lot more but not “warmth”. I thought I’d heard it all, but this is a brand new ingredient in the recipe for disaster that is the new (and getting newer by the minute) modern Mass.

    I take it this “warmth” to which you refer emanates from the priest-cum-court jester, who makes everyone feel good about their “experience” of “community” at their weekly “assembly”?

    Me? I’ll just content myself with the Mass that was good enough for the saints and that the martyrs gave their life’s blood to defend and promote. “Warmth” I’ll enjoy in the garden if we ever get any sun up here in not-so-sunny Scotland.

    Dominus Vobiscum…

  • Timorous beastie

    Crouchback,

    I don’t suppose that you think that Michael Voris is a trendy lefty. Or that Daphne McLeod is a loony liberal. Well, here is something written by Michael Voris and quoted, approvingly, on the Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice website:

    “The much needed reform of the Church is underway and gaining steam under Pope Benedict. Even if the results are not glaringly obvious, we need to be patient and understand that the problem the Church faces in Her reform is gigantic.”

    People who are seriously concerned about the state of the Church and understand what needs to be done to put things right realise that it can’t be done by a bit of cut and paste.

  • Anonymous

    Michael Voris may not be a “trendy lefty” but he’s nearly as bad – one of the neo-conservative types: all things to all men, women and children. Recognizes something’s wrong, but stops short of calling the Vatican II spade a Vatican II spade. If the Pope says the novus ordo Mass is a good thing, it’s a good thing. If he wants priests offering the TLM that’s OK too. If he wants a new translation, of the novus ordo, just for good measure, that’s cool as well.

    And, sorry, Timorous beastie, this optimistic idea that Pope Benedict is trying to put things right, but it’ll take time blah blah, is nonsense – with all due respect.

    You ARE right in that “cut and paste” is no good. We need – and will eventually get – a strong pope who will pull out, by the roots, all the modernism and heresy currently poisoning the Faith. That means sackings and disciplinings and all the things that will make a pope unpopular.

    Won’t happen under Pope Benedict of Assisi III infamy, because he’s part of the problem. Roll on the election of Pius XIII.