Thu 30th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Thu 30th Oct 2014 at 12:18pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Comment & Blogs

How can we say that the new translation of the Mass has been well or badly received? Most parishes don’t have the text yet

We just can’t judge on the basis of Mass cards containing only the people’s parts

By on Thursday, 27 October 2011

Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Roche and Pierpaolo Finaldi (Photo courtesy of Mr Finaldi)

Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Roche and Pierpaolo Finaldi (Photo courtesy of Mr Finaldi)

Last Wednesday, Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds presented Pope Benedict with a copy of the new Roman Missal.

The missal was a specially bound version of the Catholic Truth Society (CTS) altar missal used by priests in Britain.

Accompanying Bishop Roche was Mgr Bruce Harbert, former executive director of ICEL, Archbishop Denis Hart of Melbourne and Pierpaolo Finaldi, commissioning editor at the CTS.

According to Mr Finaldi, the Pope immediately asked how the new English translation had been received in parishes and remarked on the importance of beauty in liturgical books. Bishop Roche said the translation had been received well.

Well, how true is that? The comments under this piece on the Herald website included the view that “The new translation has been well received by 95 per cent of Catholics. It is only a tiny percentage who are unhappy, and pretty well all of them are Tablet readers. What else would anyone expect from those people!” But it was also opined by one commentator that he didn’t believe that “the new translation has gone down particularly well”. He went on to say that “ Most of the reaction I have heard seems to be indifferent or slightly negative. And that’s in a reasonably conservative parish with not many liberals as far as I’m aware. The new translation isn’t a failure and I’m sure we’ll get used to it in the end, but it isn’t the great success that was hoped for either.”

If this actually is the case in some parishes, however, the question really is “what else do you expect, when the only part of the Mass which people have any chance of being at all familiar with so far are the people’s parts on the Mass cards, which are all that most parishes are providing so far. But overwhelmingly the greater part of the text, which we should all, over the months and years to come, be becoming familiar with and absorbing into our prayer lives, are the parts the priest says on our behalf, firstly in the invariable prayers of the mass (the Common or Ordinary of the Mass) and in the Proper of the Mass: those prayers which change daily and weekly. That means that until parishes provide booklets with the text of the entire Ordinary of the Mass in them, and until we furnish ourselves with Sunday and Daily Missals (if you go to Mass during the week), any question as to how the Mass is being received is premature: all we can say is “so far, so good”.

The people’s Sunday Missals will be published by the CTS on November 23; the mass booklets are available now. Parishes are going, I suspect, to be slow in providing these: but I cannot recommend too strongly that you don’t wait for this, but get your own, now, particularly so that you can become familiar with the often very beautifully translated Eucharistic prayers. And while you’re about it, don’t just get the English language version, but the version which gives you both the Latin and the English texts: for, whether you normally attend Mass in Latin or in English, you will benefit hugely from having the other language on the opposite page: if you are attending Mass in Latin, you will now have a translation on the opposite page which is so close and faithful that it is a real help with unravelling the Latin text (which of course, the old translation, being nothing but a very rough paraphrase, often abbreviated, simply wasn’t). The CTS kindly sent me a copy of their very beautiful presentation Mass booklet (£4.99), with its leather-effect cover, and I have found its use immensely enriching, even though I more often attend Sunday Mass in Latin. (Incidentally, this is now out of print: demand was so high that the CTS, they tell me, were taken by surprise and they sold out. But the ordinary non-leatherette version is still available at £2.50).

And if, as I suppose most people do, you normally attend Mass celebrated in English, it is almost equally valuable to have the text there in Latin on the opposite page: for, as your eyes travel between the two, you will certainly come to see how rich and faithful a translation we now have; and unless you have a heart of stone, you will over the years ahead come to love the English text we have now been given in a way I always found impossible with the gawky and inaccurate translation now thankfully receding into the mists of time.

The Sunday and Daily Missals will be even more worth having: the work of translating all the propers has been massive, and the Latin and English versions of every prayer (common and proper) in the Mass sit side by side on the same page in parallel columns (much easier to follow) rather than on opposite pages: this is immensely valuable. Have a look at how this is laid out on the CTS website: you can turn over several pages, which shows how the whole thing works, here.

The commonplace nature of the old propers made it, I found, difficult to pray them with the priest: they came to seem like something that had to be said so that the Mass could be got through. But this has to be wrong: prayers are meant to be prayed; and I am sure that one result of our increasing familiarity with the new translations of the propers will be that more and more we will come to pray them ourselves: some of them are beautiful enough to learn by heart. Compare the prayer after communion for the first Sunday in Advent, in its new translation, with what it replaces. This prayer was originally boiled down to read

Father,

may our communion

teach us to love heaven.

May its promise and hope

guide our way on earth.

 

It was hardly memorable (or correctly translated). This is now accurately and fully translated as follows:

 

 

May the mysteries we have celebrated profit us, we pray, O Lord,

for even now, as we walk amid passing things

you teach us by them to love the things of heaven

and hold fast to what will endure

Or consider the collect for the same Sunday:

 

(Old version)

All-powerful God,

increase our strength of will for doing good

that Christ may find an eager welcome at his coming

and call us to his side in the kingdom of heaven.

 

(New version)

Grant your faithful, almighty God, we pray,

The resolve

to run forth with righteous deeds,

to meet your Christ at his coming,

so that gathered at His right hand

they may be worthy to possess the heavenly kingdom.

 

I could go on, comparing what we now have with what we were fobbed off with for so long. But though it is important to understand (and give thanks for) the vast improvement which Mgr Bruce Harbert, as Executive Director of ICEL presided over, it is much more important to simply begin to use it in prayer. But first we need to have the texts. That is the next stage; and parishes and individuals need to acquire them so that we can all move into the future. Until we do have them, deciding whether or not the new translation has been “well received” is simply pointless: it has been received only in part. Now it is time for us all to move forward on this great adventure.

  • Anonymous

    Does anyone know why the Bishops decided to introduce the new translation before the missals were available? Was it just a (rather typical) bureaucratic mistake, or was there a deliberate policy in order to make the new translation go badly?

    My confident prediction is that the new translation will make no difference, good or bad, to the liturgical life of the parish, and people will soon wonder what all the fuss was about.

  • Anonymous

    Sod how people’receive’ the new translation – the Liturgy is a gift and it is now more dignified, authentic and inspirational.

    God is worshipped more as God.
    The reality of the sacrifice of the mass is more accentuated..
    Gone are trite platitudes and inane cordial formal ‘gestures’ – words have regained their power…

    Let people have their opinions on the music and the flowers and the vestments and the quality of the sermon…

    Stuff what they think of the new translation:
    Irrespective of their opinion: It is right and just.

     

  • Anonymous

    You;re wrong – the nearer one encroaches upon reality..the closer one draws towards that sacred veil – the more everything begins to be affected by it…

    I’ll concede on theological grounds I’m somewhat irked that we had the americanism of ‘became man’ thrust upon us – and consubstantial might inspire and draw nearer the beginner…but Christologically ‘Of One Being With the Father’ is perfect… [after all the only reason we changed it was because the american ‘One in being’ is nigh-on heretical
    ….but in a million other ways the heart sings and ican sense the entire communion of saints, the souls in purgatory  and the entire world  only a breath away…

  • Anonymous

    Wasn’t it Fr Z who commented that we should beware of any purported english translation that was shorter than the latin!

  • Anonymous

    Paul, I hope that you are right. However at the parishes I have attended I have yet to notice any fruits of the new translation. For all I know hearts are singing, intellects soaring and souls worshipping in ways once thought lost; but if so then the members of the congregation are keeping this to themselves.

  • theroadmaster

    I find that the recent introduction of the New Missal with it’s glorious, literate alterations which resonate with poetical, biblical allusions makes the worshiper in the pew think more about the meaning of what they are hearing and reading as they adjust their minds to the changes therein.   The latest translation is very much a cut above the “dynamic equivalence” that dominated previous redactions. Over time Catholic worship will be restored to the dignified and transcendent status that it once enjoyed with Missals like this.

  • Stateman26

    This disaster of a missal–the Pell book– with its affected, bureaucratic tone is just what Latin-rite Catholics mistakenly think is elegant English.  All western liturgies are boring. There’s nothing you can do to improve any of them, whether they’re in Latin or English.

    The east has and remains the true seat of authentic Christian liturgy and not the sterile prattle and legalistic mumbo jumbo emanating from that collection of archaisms found in the Roman canon.  GIve me the liturgy of St. James and St. Basil any day.

  • Polypubs

    Is there a Catholic Herald for people born, educated, living in the Faith?

    Converts feel they are constantly being ‘fobbed off’. 

    But, only in England. 

    Anthony Burgess, reclaiming Joyce for Catholicsm, made an effective point. Unfortunately, in a fit of of polyglot, if not Pentecost, absent mindedness he made it in Malay or Tamil or Arabic or Russian or some other such places where it might do most good.

    Everywhere else, a convert is a Catholic same as any other- even in countries troubled by clan, colour,  or caste conflict.
    Save here. 
    Here, he is the merely attritionally Augustinian  and Australian equivalent of the whinging pom.

    No blame attaches to the good Doctor. Is he a Priest? I hope and pray that is or will be the case. 

    His book on Chesterton is superb. But, Chesterton isn’t the Catholicism of this Borough, where I live, which stretches to Manresa Hall.

    We, here, learn to speak English because it yet is citizenship and parrhesia. Dr. Oddie. like Chesterton, like Blatchford, is learning to speak not English, not parrhesia, but moody metatronics.

  • Anonymous

    Yet, paulpriest, by the very hermeneutic principle you yourself have uncovered w.r.t canon 1397- viz. ex falso quodlibet- you are  latae sententiae excommunicated by reason of having fallen below, in this comment, your exemplary and Skoptsi habit of self-lobotomy. Why?
    The public demands to be told.

  • Parasum

    Simply as a matter of logic, doesn’t the “stuff what the people *want* – they can jolly well take they get” attitude apply with equal force to the arrival of the current 1970 ICEL Missal ? A lot of people didn’t want that, either, but they had to take it; or risk being called disobedient, rebellious, etc., etc.,.  

    If the older ICEL missal is so very unsatisfactory, what does that say about those who imposed on the Church ? If (as has been claimed) it has as many as 400 mistranslations – what does that say about the shepherds & their shepherding ? These questions can hardly be ignored – not everyone has the attention span of a fruit-fly, even if Church authorities do. And what will be the excuse if the translation we are about to be given is judged to be a poor job of work ? STM bureaucracy has much to do with the present woes of the  Church.

  • W Oddie

    What’s metatronics?

  • W Oddie

    Excellently well put; my feelings exactly: “this new translation allows the heart to sing, the intellect to soar”. If only we’d had it from the beginning…..

  • W Oddie

    Yes, but that’s because (as I argue above) they DON’T YET KNOW THE TEXT. Paul does: you can access it on the net, but people aren’t taking their laptops to church. 

  • Anonymous

    No – by default the imposition of a more accurate revision with all the entailed intentions is justifiable and does not equate with the previous situation.

    Previously it was a conceivably questionable inposition those opposed to it justifiably wanted a more accurate translation – now the situation is reversed: Those opposed are against a better translation on grounds that in some way a less-accurate version is more satisfactory – any of these justification would be doxic grounded upon taste and axiomatically become negated by an epistemic one of accuracy.

  • Anonymous

    The public should be able to work it out for itself – there is no ex falso quodlibet – there’s an antinomy grounded on a false premise.

    Imposition of accuracy is axiomatically symteleological – the only justification against it would be something which was more congruent; complementarity is not a valid-enough reason to be counter-intuitive.

    Any ostensible similarity between opposition to the 70′s imposition and the present paradigm is irrelevant given the nature of the revision towards its direct end; something not present in the first situation [which held arguments of inclusivity, complementarity and supplementarity]

  • Anonymous

    What’s symteleology? 
    I’m guessing for your type of argument to work, we have to posit the existence of i-languages floating above actual languages such that the Pentecost is merely Platonic. My problem with intensional ‘ideal’ language theory- and hence the mirage of some sort of algorithmic accuracy in translation- is that it gets rid of intentionality and embodiment- i.e. it is a Pentecost without an Incarnation.
    Still, I’d be grateful for a link to Church teaching re. translation in this context.

  • Anonymous

    Metatron, the angel- as in the comic book series.  
    ‘Our task is Metatronic not Hermeneutic- to command what is writ, not to
    uncover what was written- and, like Enoch, to have walked with the Logos to
    such good effect that, raptured by its irresistible Translation, twinned with
    Elijah as its ‘wheel within the wheel’, one is thereafter ever unanimous with
    every Ophanimic or even, mere, but thereby more ruinously dear, Bibliolatric
    indent or quotation’.

       Rev. Patti Obaweyo Golem. (Quoted
    from her Twitter re. Pelosicare)

     

  • Anonymous

    I’m guessing he’s referring to metatronic healing – which is  a means of dumping accumulated baggage and eliminating the griefs and bitterness of others you’ve inculcated and absorbed within you as part of your life story.

    It’s re-writing your life by expunging the ‘exigences and irrelevancies’ of having shared other people’s pain.
    It’s anti-empathy!

    I think he means revisionist self-justification; mitigating through analgesic euphemism, abrogating responsibility to make one ‘squeaky clean’ etc; but he doesn’t understand the meaning of parrhesia so it makes the inference awkward to say the least.

  • Anonymous

    Oh…I get you now – you’re being orchidolallic!

  • http://profiles.google.com/polypubs vivek iyer

    I mean parrhesia in the context of John 10.34- ‘ye are as Gods’ (i.e the duty to Judge properly) rather than Foucault.
    Your description of this ‘metatronic healing’ business is quite frightening.
    But orchidolalia is good.

  • Anonymous

    No! There’s no need to appeal to higher metaphysical forms when one’s referring to a literal non-fungible Roman Rite form and incremental approximation towards it with potential provisional amendments as the living language adapts and pastoral, apologetic and socio-cultural inference alter

    There’s plenty written on vernacular translation and proscriptions.

    In what way does it remove intentionality or embodiment?
    Are you sure you’re not appealing to a mystagogic fallacy? That because the vernacular varieties of the form are congruent in function but not in structure there is no real function because there is no one absolute structure without appealing to some higher ineffable form?

    You’re forgetting one crucial aspect of all this – the diachronicity of it all – there is but ONE sacrifice – and there was one absolute form which rent through time and space and ripples throughout cosmic history – even to the extent that the form was made manifest the night before the sacrifice but participated in that very [single] sacrifice.

    So you have your embodiment – you also have a retro-intentionality in that the form is made manifest by the salvific action of that embodiment [like the immaculate conception being a first fruit of the redemption but occurring decades before in History]

    The Pope and von Balthasar are brilliant at all this stuff…your argument of a non-incarnation pentecost becomes ludicrous and invalid.

    symteleology [Voegelin] directed towards the same ultimate end [as in macroanthropic & microcosmic apprehensions of the human person]

  • http://profiles.google.com/polypubs vivek iyer

    Thanks for the references, which appear very promising.
    My problem is that I merely passively absorbed whatever theories of ritual and sacrifice were circulating around- Mauss, Girard, Roberto Callasso and so on- whithout bothering to look at what the actual church teaching is.
    Perhaps, the ‘cramming’ element in credentialized Higher Education is at fault for the great currency that gimcrack theories gain by a minimal appearance of engaging with reality. 
    In the context of ‘Imposition of accuracy is axiomatically symteleological’, I wrote ‘ (then) we have to posit the existence of i-languages floating above actual languages such that the Pentecost is merely Platonic.’ Add in a language of gesture, of vestment, etc and one could look at a rite as being something either
    1) translatable
    or
    2) apophatic and pointing to some hesychastic practice or participation mystique.

    In the first case, it makes sense to say ‘accuracy’ is a good thing because if language is intensional and then greater and greater accuracy in translation is going to reproduce the same semantic ‘circuit- board’ , so to speak, till you have a vernacular ‘clone’. The problem, for me, is that i-languages don’t exist and assuming they do tends to throw intentionality and embodiment and ‘mimetic desire’ and so on out of the picture.  But to do that is to get rid of diachronicity. This is what I meant by saying that, so long as an i-language theory is lurking in our mental cupboard, we’d get a platonic Pentecost without an Incarnation- surely the most worthless pi-jaw imaginable- unless it becomes mega-cool coz Steve Jobs, from his new Corporate headquarters,  gets hold of it and gives us an i-Incarnation download for our i-phone thus permitting us an i-satori rebranded for the Christian market. 
    We agree on the nature of the Sacrifice. It may be that, reading a little along the lines you have very kindly suggested, I will find some superior argument to one based on i-language for your assertion that ‘
    Imposition of accuracy is axiomatically symteleological’

  • Cyrenian

    I regularly attend the Cathedral in Edinburgh (once a week no less ;)) and there is no evidence of the new translation in use. I’m sure there are others but I feel like I’m the only one saying ‘and with your spirit’…

  • http://www.fisz.co.uk Polish translator

    Exactly!!!!

  • http://socioproctology.blogpost.com windwheel

    Sir, following the trails you have retailed, I have experienced splendours certainly- by virtue of your invocation of von Balthasar and H.H- but also miseries- viz. Voegelin’s errant, falsely ecumenical, approach, foregrounded as it is, by an anachronistic  theory of consciousness.

    However, even in your own hot-house and Gnostic ‘speculations’ ( in the old Catholic sense of the mischievous parctice of meditation in front of a mirror) upon  those orient and (to you) ‘orchidolaliac’ splendours, there is nothing germane anywhere I can see to your exiguous argument. 

    I’m a pretty normally  stupid guy and I admit to trawling fora such as this in the hope of ‘piggy backing’ on one less ireful and erudite than that mine on lapse from Grace renders me.

    Perhaps, you can instruct me. You do know a few things I don’t. But, it appears, I know many things you don’t which, if you could get your head round them, would rid you of much of your ire.
    .
    You say I don’t understand what ‘parrhesia’ means. You ascribe to me bizarre views w.r.t ‘Metatronics’.
    You don’t reply to my calling you out on your false and schismatic reading of Canon Law.
    Why?
    What is going on? 
    Some subliminal rubbish re. class and race?

    If you wrong me by saying I don’t understand parrhesia, nothing is lost. To you is given metatonia.
    Oh! sorry a nig-nog like me can’t possibly know what that word means.
    Report me once again to Dr. Oddie why don’t you.

    I had hoped you’d come back with something intelligent. I no longer hope for that. But I do pray for your metatonia. You’re worth it big guy.

  • http://socioproctology.blogpost.com windwheel

    I notice you have not cared to rebut my exposure of your foolish claim re  Canon Law and the Death Penalty.
    You have suggested that I don’t understand the meaning of parrhesia- not to me, but to Dr. Oddie, a man I respect. 
    People like you got short shrift even at my most Catholic of Schools.

    A lot of what you write is literally nonsensical. The manner in which you read too, is scandalous. You attribute ignorance and heresy to all but yourself. 
    Yet, you are stupid.
    I put you on notice that your intemperate, untruthful and utterly foolish contributions here will, be challenged by me,  in a manner utterly destructive of your cancerous amour propre.

    BTW, there are five heresies in this- ‘there is but ONE sacrifice – and there was one absolute form which rent through time and space and ripples throughout cosmic history – even to the extent that the form was made manifest the night before the sacrifice but participated in that very [single] sacrifice’

    Name each and I’ll send you a pancetta as an Xmas gift.

    Hark at me! What would  you know of Xmas?.

    Bad paulpriest, Naughty. I don’t want to see your paw print in this butter ever again.

  • http://socioproctology.blogpost.com windwheel

    To be clear- and it is best to be as clear as possible with liars and bullies like you- you are a fool and don’t know how to reason. I have five published books to my credit. Read them for free on Google Books vivek iyer &c. What do you have to your credit you liar and bully?

    You worthless fellow! Do you really thing H.H and Von Balthasar support you? You clearly don’t understand anything at all- or else are a pathological liar- otherwise why would you say about me that I don’t understand the meaning of the word parrhesia?

    I won’t call you an intellectual terrorist because you are neither an intellectual not inspire terror. You are an overgrown and senile bully whom all, but for the grace of Lord Jesus Christ, disdain and consider the proper teleological terminus of their contemptuous spittle.

    BTW are you utterly incapable of writing English? What are you- a Wykhemaist?

  • Anonymous

    Not angry – just fail to see what your problem is – and it most definitely is YOUR problem. Now you seem to think you’ve explained yourself regarding alleged attacks on my gnosticism or deviancy from Canon Law;  but I think you’re getting me confused with someone who really cares…you asked a specific question – you’ve had a more than adequate answer; if it doesn’t satisfy you – your problem.

  • http://socioproctology.blogpost.com windwheel

    My problem is you are a liar a bully and a fool. You lied when you said I didn’t understand what parrhesia meant. Your tone is that of a bully. You have advanced arguments that are foolish and show you remain untaught by the texts you claim to have studied.

    I really don’t understand your – well that’s YOUR problem- what are you a relativist? I have dealt with people like you before. They say- sure I drink or smoke crack- it’s not MY problem- its YOUR problem. 

    Very patiently I explain, thereby changing the incentive matrix, that they made it my problem when they lied to me or calumnied me or some other such thing.

    You have lied about Canon Law w.r.t to the Death Penalty. I called you on it. You have no defence to offer. 

    What do I care whether you are ‘Not angry@paulpriest:disqus - you are a liar and a bully. I want you scared. 

    This is going to be a long process. Everytime you write some nonsense, I’m going to expose you for the illiterate little shit that you are.

    Your overweening narcissism makes you think that maybe I’m like totally in love with you or something. No. You are a proven bully, liar and heretic.

    Metanoia is the word you should be looking at. I hope there is someone else on this forum who, finding you less loathsome, will help you to it.

  • http://socioproctology.blogpost.com windwheel

    I’m not angry with you at all- ‘paulpriest’- I just fail to see what your problem is- and it is most definitely YOUR problem. You are a liar and a cheat and a fraud. 
    Now you may think that I say this because of your inability to explain why Gnostic Speculation is totally irrelevant to your outright lies re. Canon Law.  But I think you are confusing me with someone who really cares about the pathology of thought of witless shits like you. 
    I asked you a specific question- you ducked it. That’s what people like you do. No doubt you blame my posh accent or black face for it. 
    I’ve written 5 books- you can read them, (you can’t read) at Google Books, by typing my name- Vivek Iyer.
    I’m a bright guy. You are a bully, a liar and an idiot.
    Every alethic or deontic position that I take has a praxis behind it. You are a stupid senile wannabe.

    I say all this not because I’m angry with you. Indeed, as a writer, I’ve spotted your plagiarism, nor because I want to hurt you in this forum.

    But, metanoia, change yourself, confess your sins, rehabilitate yourself in this community.

    Look, almost everybody else can do good English. You can’t.

    But, you could be one of us. How? Metanoia, my dear fellow.

    Not being a bully and a liar.

  • http://socioproctology.blogpost.com windwheel

    Seriously, if you have a reasoned account, somewhere on the Web, WRITTEN BY YOU, point me towards it.
    I hope I have demonstrated a certain impartiality in this respect.

    What gets me is you lying about me and your bullying tactics. I suppose I will find out soon enough where exactly you live. But, I won’t come a calling. That information belongs to others.

    I’m not angry with you. You are stupid.But, then, you are merely an imposture and a bully.

    I don’t like bullies. I think they are un-British. I don’t know what your particular criminal psycho pathology is.
    But I’m damned if I do not act upon a theological sign to secure the innocents in this Commonwealth.

    WE WILL GET YOU- YOU WILL ANSWER FOR YOUR CRIMES.
    Be under no illusions- the fact that you have been in correspondence with me IS NOT A SIGN YOU ARE INTELLIGENT.  On the contrary- it is the sort of mistake which gets bullying, lying, sociopaths like you into prison for whatever your sideline is. (I’m guessing skinning your female relatives- Yes or No?)

    Unlike you, coz I actually went to what you no doubt call ‘Colligdge’ , just not yours, dear fellow, you are valuable to me. The reverse is not the case. What I look like- a padre?

  • http://socioproctology.blogpost.com windwheel

     You are the kid in catechism class who thinks it okay to furtively eat your lunch just coz u r in on the back bench while farting and making wanking motions.
    I asked Br Morrissey, without mentioning names- and then beat the shit out of you. 

    That huge fat fellow thought he was better than us- just as you do. Beating helped him

    What might help you is if you took a course at your local F.E college. Either that or a lobotomy. You are a deeply unpleasant pile of XXXX.

  • http://socioproctology.blogpost.com windwheel

    Why did you lie about Canon Law re. the Death penalty?

    Why? Did you think people who read this are stupid? 

    Why did you say I did not understand the meaning of parrhesia?

    You are a liar, a fool, and a wannabe bully. There are Christian means to deal with you. I am waiting to find out your identity and address. Merely a matter of time.

    You have said to a third party that I don’t understand parrhesia. Yet it is a crucial concept in two of my books. You have libelled me on this forum. This is something you must answer for one way or another.

    There is literally no sentence of yours on this site which is neither shameless plagarism nor foolish and self-defeating quotation. 

    You are a worthless piece of…. I’m not angry with you, nor- like your parents, disappointed in you- rather, I am deeply something or other  because you are so univocal and unanimous with the rectum from which you excrementally exturde your ugly little tapeworm head. 

    That too to post lying and worthless comments on the website of the Catholic Herald.

    PS. this is YOUR PROBLEM.  Fucker, dont come whining to me when you get a knock on YOUR DOOR.

    This is not MY PROBLEM.  You call me a liar, I mention it to the people who have come round. What?

    WORTHLESS LIAR AND BULLY- GO TO CONFESSION.

  • http://socioproctology.blogpost.com windwheel

    The reason I’m replying to you again and again is because we’re finding things out about you. 
    You are an evil shit. In the same way as you as you lied about me to Dr. Oddie, I will track you on this forum and tell the truth about you. 
    Till, you go the way of Judas. Or Marmalade.  
    Be assured, I’m not angry with you.l You are a fucking cockroach. You haven’ written any books. You are beneath my foot. 
    Your being beaten to a proper consistency is not my problem. Certainly, it is a consummation devoutly to be wished. 
    But, only your disgusting actions not your worthless mimesis of theological views justify your being stamped upon.
    And I am, of course, dedicated to non violence. 
    Yet information wants to be free.

    How worthless are you exactly?

  • http://socioproctology.blogpost.com windwheel

    Your problem,  not mine, is a of a criminal nature. Down my neck of the woods we call you a nonce. 

    People like you make me sick.
    I will say no more.

  • Anonymous

    Come on : Cease & desist – I didn’t lie about anything.

    Judicial murder is a latae sententiae excommunicable offence – yes?!

    Recourse to a death penalty is ONLY permissible in the Catechism as a form of defence against a direct immediate lethal unjusr aggressor by individual, community or state. Any other form of state authorised killing which is not justified by self defence is Judicial murder.

    The execution of an incarcerated prisoner who exacts no direct, lethal, immediate threat is not self-defensive – ergo judicil murder ergo a laetae sententiae excommunicable offence. QED

  • Anonymous

    Don’t you think enough’s enough when you start piling on the bad language and the insults and slurs? If you’re angry and upset – explain why – if you disagree with me – or you loathe my demeanour or activities online – please there is no need to blow your top in fury – especially when the source of your anger neither understands what he’s done wrong nor what you’re arguing.

    I am willing always and anywhere to talk to anyone – but come on dude – this is inappropriate on here – if you wish to argue or discuss – you know my e-mail. I will neither read nor reply to your comments on here – so any attempt to either blacken my name or make vile insinuations will be futile – it’s obvious you are angry and upset – and blatantly obvious that you don’t know me…so calm down and tell me what’s wrong..but not on here.

  • K. Smith

    I for one am looking forward to the ‘…place of refreshment.’
    Well, no. This new translation really has got very little to do with ‘soaring intellects’ or ‘singing hearts’ . More like ‘bemused brains and sinking hearts.’
     

  • K. Smith

    ‘It is right and just’ is it ? And, it ‘leads to our salvation’ , I suppose? And, ‘stuff [with what,pray?] what they think of the new translation.’

    How is it that ‘God is worshipped more as God’ in this new translation? This is pious nonsesnse.
     Words have power when they are spoken in honesty, dirctly and plainly from the heart. This new translation does not do this.

  • MEG

    Do we need a lot of  words like “forth” and “righteous”, or could we have had an accurate translation that used somewhat more natural language.

  • Honeybadger

    New English Translation – we, in Shrewsbury Diocese have been put through our paces from the get-go and, boy, is it worth it!

    I underestimated just how jaded and tired the previous English liturgy sounded when I came back to Mass at my parish after having the privilege of attending Mass in the Extraordinary Form (which I prefer). 

    Being brutally honest, it was like going back to driving a Soviet-era Lada after zooming up the motorway in a Lamborghini!

    Almighty God, through Our Lord Jesus Christ, deserves our full attention at Holy Mass, to think and pray the responses with our hearts, souls, spirits focused on praising them… not on convenience and little effort.

    I noticed how there’s less chummering in the pews amongst the grey haired parishoners since the new translation – simply because it requires our full attention!

    That can only be a good thing.

  • Honeybadger

    Yes. Imagine if we had the option of using iPads or iPhones with an App (other all-singing, all-dancing phones are available) especially geared towards the new translation and follow the responses? Providing the sound is turned off, of course!

    Then again, it would be too much of a distraction and an instrument of temptation (i.e. when the priest is preaching his Homily, we look up twitter, facebook etc.) and become a target for lowlives who think nothing of nicking purses and handbags from the pews when we walk up to receive Christ.

    It’s debatable.

  • guest

    I am so sorry but you are so out of touch with the peopel in saying that this new translation allows the heart to sing………….within my diocese people are so upset about the translation. Maybe you need to think more about your people.

  • AlleluiaPTL

    We need to keep in mind this Vatican peoccupation with its own power base when we view all of its actions and decisions affecting the life of the Church taken by the current Pontiff and his immediate predecessor. Church authority does not reside within the Vatican. It resides within the Church itself, and the Church, as we all know from Vatican ll, is the people.     

  • Peterm

    As someone who has lived in Scotland all his 60 years and enjoyed the translation of the Mass we had till a few months ago I have yet to meet a clergyman or daily or weekly mass-goer who likes this Mass.  And I do ask as many as I can. Most priests are exasperated and the laity treat it as a joke. 

    Did the person who told the Pope 90% liked the new Mass take a poll?
    The intellectual exhibitionism/masturbation shown by paulpriest and several of the other folk who have commented below now show me where and how this pidgin-english translation arose and who it is for.Was the Plain English Society for involved?I thought the point of vernacular translation was to make the Mass more understandable for English speakers.I attend Mass to listen to the readings and receive communion. Sadly the rest is like listening to the dialogue in Pirates of the Caribbean.I can’t see how this will attract young people into an increasingly geriatric church – just look at the pews and the clergy.

  • Benedict Carter

    Just go back to the Old Mass and get rid of all the detritus of the last fifty years. All of it. 

  • Benedict Carter

    Sorry, that is straight-forward protestantism. If you truly believe what you write, leave the Catholic Church and go down the road to the Methodists. 

  • Bernard

    12 months on, it’s still dull, stodgy, stilted and frankly is disastrous. For Bishop Roache to tell the Pope that it has been well received is disgraceful. It has been foisted onto a people who don’t want it and it is being tolerated since as we in Durham were told ” the Church is not a democracy”.
    No, it isn’t. But the road to Canterbury runs both ways!