Saturday, February 5, 2011

New Missal Translation

The Association of Catholic Priests, representing about 400 of Ireland’s 4,500 priests has made an urgent plea to the country’s bishops to postpone the introduction of the new English translation of the Missal for at least another five years.

Representatives from the priests’ group said the proposed literal translations from Latin had produced texts that were “archaic, elitist and obscure and not in keeping with the natural rhythm, cadence and syntax of the English language”.

What? Do they think the Sacred Liturgy is a novel?

Fr Dermot Lane, president of Mater Dei Institute of Education in Dublin, said the priests want the bishops to begin consulting with priests, liturgical committees and lay people to develop new texts that would inspire and encourage the faithful.

These priests do not represent the laity. Is it not very presumptuous of the priests to decide for us lay people what will or will not inspire and encourage us? Such arrogance. They seem to think that the Irish people will not be able to 'understand' the new translation. We are mature adults, with mature faith, who love and are faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. To be quite honest I'd rather listen to the Pope and our bishops and embrace what they have proposed rather than rebellious, anti-hierarchical, sometimes heretical priests.
One priest, Fr Gerard Alwill, a priest in the Diocese of Kilmore, said:
“We are saying very clearly that this new translation of the Missal is not acceptable… We are deeply concerned that if these new texts are imposed, they could create chaos in our church. Our Church doesn’t need chaos at this time."
Fr PJ Madden said the association feared that the imposition by the Vatican of a revised prayer book containing arcane language would lead to
"chaos and confusion".
Is it not possible that the 1970 translation in use for the past forty years is seriously flawed and in fact has caused much confusion among the laity. There is much less ‘full and active participation’ in the Mass in Ireland now than there was 40 years ago. Perhaps the current English translation, ‘a new and improved version’ of which the ACP would welcome, is one of the reasons for this?

Surely the new English translation of the Roman Missal represents "a catechetical moment for the whole Church" in the country. I look forward to the moment when only the priest says "Through Him, with Him, in Him" and the congregation says with one voice "Amen"! I look forward to the moment when the congregation will kneel at the Consecration and at the appropriate parts of the Mass instead of the situation we have at the moment where the people either don't know or don't care. What have the Priests of the Priests' Association done in the last 30 years to address that? Nothing!

The liberals in the Church are scared and scare-mongering. Their drift from Holy Tradition to the point of protestantising the Catholic Church has finally been road blocked.

Deo gracias.

Newspaper coverage:

Irish priests claim new Mass translation is ‘elitist and sexist’.

Priests fear Mass confusion as Vatican gets lost in translation.

"He took the cup."

Priests say missal is 'sexist and elitist'

Priests’ Association “gravely concerned” over new missal.

A list of Catholic Blogs with reference to the New Missal.


Dissident Irish priests try to create discord and resentment against the new translation.


  1. To be honest, the missal is perfectly clear now as to silence of the congregation during "Through Him..." and on when to kneel (it's even in the misselette). A new translation is not going to change that.

    As I said elsewhere, I dislike the use of consubstanial instead of "one being" as ugly, overly technical and unpoetic. (It is clear enough that I immediately saw the point when studying Aquinas - a point not emphasised on the course). I think substituting "many" for "all" is begging misunderstanding - which might not matter if sermons dealt seriously with faith, but seeing as they often do not is a serious problem. As it happens, I also think using "he" to mean "he or she" is unhelpful - but given the emphasis on a return to the original, probably not surprising.

  2. I disagree. Language is supposed to reflect accurately the meaning. It is not meant to be poetic. It is not a poem. Perhaps the changes will present a new opportunity for the lay faithful to 'think'. To think about the meaning and in so doing they will then understand where to kneel and respond accordingly.

    The fashionable expressions of the day will change from one generation to the next, but by keeping the text as close as possible in meaning to the original text you have no danger of losing the full, true and accurate meaning. As a Catholic woman I have always accepted and liked 'man'. For instance, "Man does not live on bread alone". That man includes me too. Maybe it's too radical for the feminists!! That is inclusive.

  3. On the ACP were likened to a geriatric form of the Rotary Club. I think that's correct.