We are sorry we are not able to post all of the comments we receive.  The following selections are representative of many thousands more.  These comments were received between December 4 and December 28, 2009.

Thank you for reminding us we do have a world wide medium for the voice of "sensus fidelium" to be heard. Let's hope someone will listen.
Larry Kelley | Priest | Boston | usa
 
Thanks for a great article. If we priests only had a common voice. Presbyteral Councils are overseen by 'higher authority'..NFPC wont touch it. Canon Law Society of America used to take such causes - no more. We priests need a mechanism for action so we don't seem like a group of disgruntleds. Liturgy shoved down our throats instead of rising from our hearts is not liturgy. It shows disrespect for the people involved. Non-consultation results in non-compliance and non-compliance results in bitterness and division. Old Canon Law axiom: a law cannot become binding unless it is accepted by the community for which it was intended.
Rev. Robert F. Pfeiffer, JCL, D.Min. | Priest | Cleveland | USA
 
I've been a priest for 55 years. Although retired from parish work I still help out with liturgies. I hope our Bishops will listen to your message. They didn't listen to their peer, Bishop Trautman, so I don't believe they will listen to us. Most of them are more concerned about listening to what Rome says rather than what their people say. I love the Church. I want to keep the liturgy as the prayer of all the people not just the bishop or priest. Thank you for your article in America. Gob Bless!
James Gavit | Priest | Saginaw | USA
 
Thank you for your willingness to state the obvious!
Becky Burns | Lay Person | Seattle | USA
 
My concern is ... How can the Pastoral Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, approved by Pope Paul VI in council with all the bishops of the world (pretty close to definitive magisterial teaching) be so lightly dismissed ... because the translation from the Latin isn't sufficiently literal ... to a few high up the hierarchical ladder, who also happen to be in the right positions to bring about a whole new Sacramentary. A Conciliar document put aside in favor of what? An opportunity for ultraconservative backlash? Hasn't the holy Father gone out of the way to bring back splintered communities who have wanted to hold on to the Tridentine Mass? Why would he now approve of a new translation of the Sacramentary which seems poised to create a whole new crop of splintered groups who want to hold on to what we have been taught to be authoritative magisterial teaching?
Rev. Steven Kucharski | Priest | Manchester, NH | USA
 
It is Christmas Eve and I just read the article on the new missal. Thank you - It is a wonderful Christmas gift to find pastors who are aware, pastoral, willing to speak out and providing us a means to do so. The last few years have been difficult for us "Vatican II" Catholics. As the church tries to keep moving us backwards, I keep saying to myself, "Do they really think we are that stupid? No. We are not. Chardin said that as we grow in personal development in the mileau, there will be renunciation and disintegration of earlier attachments. My attachment to the church and liturgy is disintegrating. However, not the Eucharist. My director told me this morning, "You must follow your heart." Once a catholic always a catholic I have found, but my heart is speaking out against the way the church believes they can impose what is contradictory. Ex: in vitro is off limits but we must use feeding tubes. So Science is not ok to help couples conceive, but we must use Science to continue life when nature would lead to a natural death? You can call me a "cafeteria catholic" or whatever term you can come up with, but those are your labels in attempt not to have to face real issues.
Denise Anderson | Lay Minister | Detroit | United States
 
Bravo, Fr. Ryan! You have put into words what I have been struggling to say ever since reading the study edition of the new translations. But in proposing a "just wait" stance, you are being more generous than I would be. Even after - or especially after - a presentation to the clergy of our archdiocese by Msgr. James Moroney, I remain convinced that the new translations are NOT what we need. I have seen nothing compelling about the reasons advanced for the proposed changes, aside from the fact that those who are determined to impose them on the English-speaking churches have the authority to do so. The language is NOT an improvement, but is artificial and only frustrates one of the principal aims of the liturgical reform, i.e., intelligibility. As proof, I would point to the existing authorized translation of the Lectionary, which is extremely awkward in many respects. The idea that priests should accept "as a gift to the Church" the burden of trying to explain to our people terminology, allegedly in their own tongue but in a more "elevated" idiom that is said to be "more faithful" to the Latin text and word order (!), asks too much of us and of our people. We already understand what we are saying: we don't need a more "elevated" form of discourse. As for the "improved" doctrinal accuracy that is said to be the chief virtue of the new texts - I recognize the subtle distinctions, but do not agree that the familiar texts distort our faith or our understanding of it. (Ironically, during Msgr. Moroney's presentation, intended to demonstrate the greater precision of the new texts, he displayed a slide that misspelled, both times, the word "equivalence" when contrasting the formal and dynamic styles of translation!) Pretending that we welcome these translations would be like replaying the old tale of the Emperor's new clothes. It won't fool those who can see plainly enough that this is not a fair response to some groundswell of popular demand, but merely another way to gratify (without really appeasing) those who have been unhappy with the "new" liturgy from the beginning, and who seem bent on returning us to a form and "look" of worship that I also revered back in the day - but which was judged (by an ecumenical council) to be in need of thorough-going reform - a process which required major adjustments of all of us. It is a process that, I strongly believe, it is not now necessary for us to repeat, apparently to satisfy stylistic preferences of "experts" who are largely unaccountable to those who are expected to embrace - with enthusiasm, no less - the results of their discussions and decisions. I was particularly offended by Msgr. Moroney's revelation that there will be multiple versions of the Mass texts in the Spanish language - if the Spanish-speaking churches can have translations more adapted to their particular circumstances, why does the same principle not pertain to the English-speaking churches? Surely we can acknowledge that all English-speakers do so with certain differences in their respective cultures. What influence do the world's Spanish-speaking hierarchies have that their English-speaking brothers do not? And now we learn that accommodations will be made for former Anglicans who enter into communion with the Roman Catholic Church to retain expressions of worship with which they are familiar from the Book of Common Prayer! If the Church can meet their needs, why not those of the many of us who are spiritually satisfied with the current translations? Indeed, if accommodations can be made for those who insist they must have the Tridentine Mass in order to pray effectively, why cannot a similar dispensation be given to those of us who are "attached" to translations that have been "received" and accepted by the Church over the course of 40 years, that were indeed sanctioned by the highest authority and even utilized, on numerous occasions, in papal liturgies with American congregations? I suppose my argument is really with Liturgiam Authenticam and its principles of translation: again, we may have to accept its authoritative nature, but I do not see why we should be expected to explain, much less defend and promote, those principles and how they are being applied, when they contradict common perceptions. I can already see myself having to adopt the least problematic of the new Eucharistic Prayers as my "default" choice for most celebrations of Mass, simply as a way of avoiding the distraction caused by stilted Latinate formulas. The internal struggle to try to respect Church authority while also honoring our people's right to pray in readily intelligible and familiar words, will further sap the energy and abuse the loyalty of priests. Condescending comments about our "regrettable" lack of zeal and dedication (like Msgr. Moroney's paean to a generation of younger priests who "at last" - as he implied - seem eager to respond to the Church's directives in these matters) are dismissive of all who have worked faithfully to serve the Church and its people with devout adherence to the existing texts and with respectful (if not mechanical) attention to the current rubrics. I agree with Fr. Ryan: implementation of these texts is NOT where we need to be expending our time and energy at this point in the Church's life in our society. As we celebrate the Birth of the Word Made Flesh, I pray that our bishops may listen - genuinely - to the concerns expressed in Fr. Ryan's eloquent plea.
Timothy J. Shugrue | Priest | Newark, NJ | USA
 
It seems to me that one of greatest achievements of Vatican II, and something that made manifest its spirit, was the Liturgical Renewal that allowed the Eucharist to become a truly community celebration.
Robert Burnett | Lay Person | St Andrew's and Edinburgh | Scotland
 
I heartily agree that it is time to wait ! I was ordained in the post Vatican II Church , and though I love the Latin Mass , the movement today is away from a final "abiding meal" of Jesus with his Apostles, his friends, to one of power and control by the Vatican. Just witness and try to reconcile the Solemn High Pontifical Latin Mass of Bp Cordileone ( see "YouTube") in Oakland , Ca. with the Last Supper offered by Jesus. I am truly afraid of the direction the Church is moving. Scott
Anonymous | Priest | San Diego , Ca. | USA
 
Since we're talking about the language of the Eucharist, we have to be sure that we have used a process that will provide our Church with the best English possible. I don't think the process that was used or the translation that was arrived at are worthy of the vision of the Council fathers.
Fr. Robert Cole | Priest | Cleveland | USA
 
I have read the thoughtful article of Michael Ryan and it expresses very well many of my own feelings regarding the new English translation of the Mass. I attended a seminar held for clergy of the Sydney archdiocese, and although some aspects of the translation seemed "innocent" enough, I could not honestly understand the point of most of what was being proposed even though we kept on being told how much of an improvement it would be. In my own heart, I felt that when it would come to convincing others of the merit of this translation, I would have a hard job doing so simply because I am not convinced myself. I hope that the Church is not about to start trying to convince its members to start pretending to believe in something they cannot, especially when it does not concern a matter of faith and morals. I therefore sincerely and respectfully support this petition wholeheartedly.
Fr Mario Debattista ofm | Priest | Sydney | Australia
 
I have been watching the developments on the translation of the new missal with much dismay. The document, Liturgiam authenticam, was a disaster. It put translators in a strait jacket. It affected the quality of the translation of the lectionary and is doing the same to the new Roman Missal. This whole process has undermined the principals set forth from Sacrosanctum Concilium by having a few elites in Rome controlling the translations over the English-speaking bishops and reputable Scripture scholars. Languages are different, and to try to translate too literally from the Latin to English makes the English awkward and not conducive to prayer.
David A. Sork | Priest | Los Angeles | United States
 
I have been behind Bishop Trautman since I met him in first grade. Way to go, Donald!
Anonymous | Lay Minister | Buffalo | USA
 
I am very saddened to see how "they" (whoever they are) have butchered the English language and thereby distorted the theology of the Eucharist in the new translation. In faith and conscience I cannot see myself saying "some" and not "all" in the prayers. My world has been turned upside down. I ask myself, "should I continue in the priesthood?" I'm barely hanging on to my faith in the Church. Please reconsider the proposed translation and listen to the faithful. This translation should not be implemented.
Anonymous | Priest | San Francisco, | America
 
I'm signing, though it seems futile. Since when have the bishops cared about what we think or feel?
John Knepper | Lay Person | Joliet, IL | USA
 
With so many truly important issues to be dealt with in our world today, why in the world do we waste time changing the translations of prayers? I wasn't aware that Latin was one of the inspired languages of Scripture. Get on with the important stuff and let people pray to God in language that is clear, concise and understandable. Like a joke; if you have to explain it(or look up the words in a dictionary) it's no good.
Father John C. Curtis | Priest | Lexington | USA
 
I spend too much time teaching my Greek students in the seminary to interpret Biblical texts in a sensitive way, that would lead to understanding and appreciation, to find anything but sadness at the manner in which these key liturgical texts have been translated. How can people pray what they can't comprehend? Why would would ask anyone to pray in a way that wasn't uplifting or viscerally challenging? This unthinking literalism doesn't lead to greater fidelity. It leads to empty pews.
J. Patrick Mullen | Priest | Los Angeles | USA
 
The new translation of the Missal is frequently inferior, clumsy, and altogether unworthy of the celebration of the Eucharist, our greatest prayer as Catholics. The manner in which the efforts of Conferences of Bishops have been overruled and bypassed after years of study and consultation on this important development in liturgical practice is unacceptable, in light of the teaching of Vatican Council II on the role of the Conferences. This translation is going to alienate many Catholics, and create frustration and anger among pastors and other pastoral ministers who will have the difficult task of trying to explain why these new translations should be calmly accepted and implemented. I am in full agreement with the "Statement of Concern" that is at the heart of this effort.
Rev. Kennetyh P. Lohrmneyer | Priest | Salina, Kansas | United States of America
 
I recognize that the Roman Catholic Church needs to have a hierarchy with power to govern, but I believe that the people who are the church need to have some say in what happens. While many of us are less than inspired by those who have been named as bishops and cardinals in the past years, it is something we can live with without too much affect on our spiritual lives. BUT, messing with the Liturgy is another matter. Some refinement of the language is probably needed, but the changes I have heard are going to take place will not enhance our spiritual experience at Mass. If you want to make it "Greek" to those int he pews, then just go back to the Latin and write off our participation -- like the "good old days."
Jerry Enderle | Lay Person | Cincinnati | USA
 
The fact that so many people have signed this petition anonymously shows these changes are being made in a way that creates fear, not the fruits of the Spirit, in God's people. That more than anything is a good reason to slow the process down.
Anonymous | Lay Person | Chicago | USA
 
As I read the comments written in response to this petition and noticing the box at the bottom of this page, I ask this question. Why do many of us think we cannot feel free enough to express our thoughts and ideas in relation to an institution that is all about us, and not about "the management" ? Which is what these changes, in reverse appear to be about. Why would I have to hide my name ? This is about my faith, - our faith, in one being, the freedom and openness of Jesus Christ. And it is not about reverting to a foreign language and process that will only create more confusion, frustration, and disenchantment that is in dire need of healing. Phil Murray
Phil Murray | Lay Person | Charlotte, NC | USA
 
The new language does nothing to bring us closer together with our Lord. At best, it will be an awkward distraction and point of amusement. At worst, well, I dare not say. . . And the very idea that the Nicene Creed would be rewritten with the singular "I" pronoun rather than the plural "we!" Are we not a Eucharistic community? Do we celebrate the Eucharist alone? No! We are called to come together as community, to profess our common belief as community and to celebrate the Eucharist as community. I was raised within the "Jesus and me" context of Protestant churches. As a convert, the "Jesus and we" language of the Nicene Creed speaks volumes of who we are as Church. . . . . a collective - catholic - "we," not a gathering of many "I's." Please reconsider the rewording of the Nicene Creed and the entire new Roman Missal.
Amber Vachon | Lay Minister | Knoxville, TN | USA
 
Please wait until there is a better understanding of the impact of these changes. We are fighting immense challenges as a church and as a Catholic people, this has the potential to alienate many whose ties to the church have already been weakened; it has no hope of strengthening their connection to the church or to God.
R Emerson | Lay Person | Oakland, CA | USA
 
Before embarking on an overall promulgation of changes in the words of our liturgical prayer, I think that the bishops should consider the above suggestion: to try out the changes in a select area for a determined amount of time and then assess the value of the changes. For the bishops to promote the verbal changes (which I believe to be awkward and distracting) to the entire English-speaking church and engage in the massive expense of printing new texts before these changes have been tried and tested would be wasteful and foolish. Successful businesses test their products before making commitments. "The children of this world are wiser than the children of light," said a well-known Friend of ours. Let's listen!!
Mary Esther Stewart | Lay Person | Phoenix | USA
 
Experimentation and consultation are necessary. Some translations are actually better, e.g. old: 'from east to west'; new: 'from the rising of the sun to its setting'. But many are awful and the America article highlighted most of these. Ironically 'one in being' is a much better translation of the Greek 'homoousias' than 'consubstantial'.
Rev. James J. McCartney, OSA | Priest | Villanova Province | United States
 
I have been reading the column Listen to the Word in The (London) Tablet , where the study texts of the new Missal are given for each week. I try to pray them aloud as I would at the altar. I find most of them impossible to express in a intelligible way. There is no excuse for the church to be going backwards when it comes to praying the texts of the church in lovely, poetic language. But that is what we are doing with this new translation.
Tom Boland | Priest | Louisville | USA
 
As a fellow seminarian in 1963 (though in Paris and not in Rome), I too became caught up in the joy of an anticipated a lliturgy in the vernacular language. And I too have lived long enough now to mourn its further demise. I see no reasonable person being able to oppose this proposal reasonably. To wait, to work, to ensure credibility seem not only reasonable but highly laudable. To do otherwise (as it seems the Vatican proposes) would be to court disaster for years to come. To do as proposed risks nothing; to do otherwise is to risk what we can ill afford to lose!
Dr. Edward M. Dempsey | Priest | Norwich | USA
 
I wholly support the wise counsel presented in the article in America. Our liturgy is too important for our Church for this type of archaic, cumbersome language to obscure its meaning and beauty. This is not idiomatic English. It will detract from faith rather than strengthening it. Let's wake up here. This is our worship, our praise, our expression of our faith.
Paul Kircher | Lay Person | Oakland | U.S.
 
The American Catholic Community does not need another thing to be upset about for some years to come.
James J. Sheehan | Lay Person | Detroit | United States
 
Please do not move forward with the liturgical translations from the Latin. I grew up when the Mass was in Latin. Words such as "under my roof", referring to the reception of the Eucharist, never made sense then, and do not now. What we need are current translations in everyday English with include all of God's people, female as well as male, not translations from the Latin! God bless you for your consideration of these requests.
Kathryn Kram | Lay Minister | Columbus, OH | USA
 
The proposal is reasonable. Field testing is a good and accepted way for innovations/changes to be introduced to broad populations, enhancing acceptance. I am aware already of priests who simply say they will not buy the new sacramentaries or use the new translations. Others will simply substitute their own alternative wording for phrasings they find clumsy or unintelligible to the people they pastor ('Latinity vs. lucidity'). We don't need still another issue to divide us and set us against or apart from one another. I trust the new translation enhances some wordings, but it appears to leave new problems in their place.
Bernard R Bonnot | Priest | Youngstown | United States
 
I I've been a pastoral musician most of my religious life and I know what people can relate to in both praying words and singing hymns. Please WAIT>.
Alice Adams | Religious | Arch. of Louisville, KY | USA
 
To a religious educator, few sights and sounds are more rewarding and moving than those of children in prayer. Neither is there much greater satisfaction than knowing that you, as their Religion teacher, may have had a hand in transmitting the knowledge of this prayer to your students. And like the canon of devotional prayers that have been handed down through our beautiful Catholic tradition, the prayers of the Mass, likewise passed on and taught by millions of devoted parents and catechists, have become just as ingrained into the minds and hearts of several generations of worshippers. To change those prayers now with so little explanation and/or rationale seems capricious at best, if not downright detrimental to the catechetical process. To adopt a 'wait and see' policy would seem to be a prudent, and beautifully pastoral stance.
Anne Huppmann Kidwell | Lay Minister | Archdiocese of Baltimore | USA
 
In this age of Vatican II, widely embraced, Catholics, returning to their faith and new converts, it is a mistake to drastically change the liturgy without more than a mere token of preparation and catechesis. We have been fully participating members in the lay ministries of the Church. Don't shut us out now, when there is so much else wrong with our world, that we continue to fight for. Don't make us fight for our church as well!
Frances Guerrero | Lay Person | Monterey, California | USA
 
Father Ryan's suggestion to "just say wait" is wonderful. His article, Bishop Trautman's heroic efforts to try to enlist support of the bishops, and the many people who have signed on to this site all give me hope for our Church. Any beginning foreign language student quickly learns that slavish adherence to a literal translation results in poor grammar and awkward expressions and that; more importantly, it often obscures the original meaning. In addition this approach fails to take into account the fact that words in a spoken language undergo changes in meaning over the years. It is sad to realize that because our Church "leaders" are apparently unaware of these basic concepts, the prayers of the liturgy may become less meaningful and more removed from our daily lives.
Paddy Lorenz, CSJ | Religious | Kansas City-St. Joseph | USA
 
The Holy Spirit guides all persons, not only the Roman curia. The Holy Spirit will lead the English-speaking community to find reverent language that meets the challenges of the current era, to proclaim the Gospel and to worship in inclusive terms. Leave the Spirit to do its own work, by simply waiting in the upper room.
Tim Dunne | Lay Person | Cape Town | South Africa
 
YES I, too, agree with the Reverend Ryan: ..Let's just say wait concerning implementation of the revised language for the Liturgy. Rather, let us allow the various members of the hierarchy to focus their attention on the Social Justice issues of the Church identified in the various papal encyclicals that address the rights of the working man/woman. Even the Bishops Pastoral on the Economy should be studied further as it had some great ideas in it. What happened? Is it just collecting dust on the bookshelves of our prelates, priests, and seminarians??? Why not advertise its contents and attempt to implement some of these ideas? Why create a document if there is no follow up? Why have a Church if it does not address the concerns of the lower-archy. Are we not all Church???? There are a lot of hurting people in this country at this time. The last thing that they need is someone telling them that they are NOT worshiping properly!
James A. Pitassi, Jr. | Lay Person | Providence | USA
 
I have been impressed by the cogency and passion of arguments based on language, theology, Vatican II values, the rights of the people of God. But I am afraid none of that is going to make any difference, even if 7100 people from every English speaking diocese were responding. The sad fact is that certain "black hands" - Fr. Fessio, SJ, Catholics United for the Faith, EWTN - have convinced the powers-that-be in Rome that they represent "a great silent majority" of Catholics and control a significant amount of money. Until Cardinal George and his brother bishops "bind up their loins", as St. Paul would say, (Confirmation candidates here would say "!Tengan unos cajones!" or "Get some balls!") and impress upon those same powers the reality that, if they keep mucking with our translations, the flow of funds from parish to diocese to Vatican will dry up. Unless that happens, the impending train wreck is inevitable. Or, maybe not. Maybe now is the Holy Spirit's time for pastoral councils at parish and diocesan levels throughout the English speaking world to exert their authority as counselors to the pastors. If some coordinator for such an effort could be found at USCC or the Federation of Priests' Councils or some other like organization, maybe the councils could rise up in unison and say, quoting Fr. Alan Bouley, OSB, "We don't just say 'Wait..' We say, 'Pastorally unusable, return to sender!'"
Casimiro Roca | Priest | Santa Fe, NM | USA
 
As members of the Catholic Church, we should have a chance to read and approve any liturgical changes to our prayer life. This is not a matter of "Faith & Morals". We cannot ask ex-Catholics to return to our church if we're not sure to what they are returning.
Dorothy A. Sheehan | Lay Person | Chicago | USA
 
The new translation sounds like it will make a great reference text for those ethnic groups that need to create a translation of the Mass into their native tongue from our English text. So let's update and keep our dynamic translation for our own use, and place this new transliteral version as a reference resource on our bookshelf.
Mimi Arima, M.Div. | Lay Minister | Seattle | USA
 
I am afraid that these changes are going to be jarring and, rather than take us closer to the reality of the Divine during Mass, instead throw up roadblocks. For instance, why change "cup" to "precious chalice?" Wasn't it a cup that Jesus used at the Last Supper? Even if it was a chalice, was it indeed "precious?" I would think that what's inside of it was/is the real treasure. If these changes are unaltered, I will grit my teeth and stay faithful. I am afraid, however, that they will be the last straw for many people in the pews, when it really hits home how little the "sense of the faithful" seems to matter to the Roman Curia. Also interesting how many bishops went bonkers when Notre Dame invited the president to speak, but only one seems to have had the guts to challenge Rome on this. AMDG
Mark E. Rondeau | Lay Person | Springfield, Mass. | United States
 
I have been involved in liturgy and music in my parish for over 40 years and have never been as upset over any of the changes as I am about the New Roman Missal. The translation into English as proposed will contain major flaws and in many cases will not make sense. How can this make our prayer more effective? Please rethink what is happening.
Gretchen Krueger | Lay Person | Superior | USA
 
"Take this, all of you, and drink from it: This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me." Will I even in conscience proclaim an institution narrative that will say that Jesus gave up his life "for many" (which clearly in English connotes 'not all')? I do know what the Latin means; more like the vast multitude. But the word "many" in English does not do that. So I am supposed to pray the new translation and then explain to the people that it doesn't really mean what it so clearly and mistakenly says? It might be the first time that praying a mass as presider is a matter of conscience for me. I have asked for help by "explainers," but none coming forth is anywhere near satisfactory. I suspect that if it is promoted and published, I will simply personally alter the text and delete the words "for many" and then not include the words "for all" so as not to draw attention to it. I'll practice the text to make it smooth. But I hope such a mistake is never promulgated so that can avoid the conscience issue.
Rev. John L. Graden, OSFS | Priest | Buffalo | USA
 
The church belongs to the people, not the other way around. This new translation seems to be more about control than prayer. The new prayers are clumsy and draw attention to themselves, rather than to God. The learning process will make people feel inadequate, with no reward at the end--because there is no obvious improvement. It is obviously less serviceable than our present translation. How sad. Familiar musical settings will be unusable. Have you seen the new Gloria? It can only be chanted, or spoken. What an incredible loss of familiar sung prayer for the assembly. These new words will cause fewer people to participate, and turn participation inward. Sung prayers like the Gloria will be relegated to a cantor who will chant them for the assembly. Or this magnificent age old song of praise will mostly be spoken. How sad. This new translation has all the appearances of a liturgical chess move made to change and control the playing field. It speaks for itself--literally. The result of unnecessary authoritarianism is always disenfranchisement. Doors and windows that were opened with Vatican II are systematically being shuttered. For the glory of God? For the good of the people? For the salvation of the world? No, strictly for control. How sad. How very sad indeed.
Paul Dolejsi | Lay Minister | Seattle | United States
 
Historically, has any other article in AMERICA ever triggered 160 e-mailed and printed responses to date (12/20)? Let me, uselessly, add one more 1-2-3 comment: 1. If the priest says, 'The Lord be with you,' I will naturally respond, "And also with you.' If he says, 'The Lord be with your spirit,' i will humbly condescend and respond, 'And with your spirit.' 2. If the Tridentine Mass is mandated in a parish, it should also me mandated that any announcement for the collection be in Latin. 3. At my age (86), and after four years of work at the Vatican, I love and do appreciate Latin. But I am convinced that the Mass and all other liturgical functions should be celebrated in the same language in which the announcements about the collection are made. And for the same reason. Fr. Larry N Lorenzoni, SD.B
Fr. Larry N. Lorenzoni, S.D.B. | Religious | San Francisco | USA
 
What a wonderfully positive suggestion made by Rev. Michael Ryan in his 12/14/09 article in America magazine. The recently published examples of the new translations of the new Roman Missal are difficult to understand let alone prayerfully communicate as the Presider at Eucharist. At a time when the number of those identifying themselves regularly excuse themselves from Sunday Eucharist, I find it inconceivable that we will be expected to explain and enthusiastically support such vocabulary in the prayer of the Eucharist. Bishops, please, step back from this accelerated push to implement these changes. Thank you. Msgr. Charles A. Kaza S. Tobias Church Brockway, PA Diocese of Erie
Msgr. Charles A. Kaza | Priest | Erie | USA
 
Our liturgical language must be of the kind that helps our people enter into the EXPERIENCE of what is being celebrated and not simply be attending what is being celebrated. The holding hard and fast to an exact, word for word, translation of the Latin, smacks of a "magic formula" mentality. The Bishops' Conference must manifest the courage to speak out for its people and do all it can to ensure that the liturgy calls the people to enter into the experienced, living, encounter with the Father, Son and Spirit. This encounter is what transforms us and sends us forth to build the Kingdom. Ritualistic language that does not resonate with the people's living experience, does not not foster or deepen the incarnational faith desperately needed today.
Gene Barrette | Priest | Missionary of Our Lady of La Salette | U.S. Smyrna, GA
 
If my prayer is part of my life's communicating processes then I must pray as I speak. My language is English, unfortunately the only one in which I am fluent, despite four years of Latin study in my youth. I use it as people around me use it - to express my needs, my feelings, my thoughts - in as clear and concise a way as possible. For the poetry in my life and language I can go to Shakespeare and the great writers; for the poetry in my prayer life I go to the scriptures, but when I pray with my community I want to use the same language in prayer that I use among them each day. The Lord be with us all - in Spirit and in spirit and in the Body and in the body of pray-ers.
Michael Goodwin | Lay Person | Brisbane | Australia
 
I recognize the authority of the bishops and all the hard work that went into the new translations. However, as a Confirmation catechist for over twenty years, I am concerned that the new translations will interfere with the laity's basic understanding of the Mass and the salvific power of Jesus through the Eucharist. The Mass, as the Second Vatican Council so beautifully taught, is the "source and summit" of our spiritual life. These new translations are somewhat stilted and may interfere with a lay person's basic theological understanding of what is occurring at Mass. We remember, we celebrate and we believe. I ask the bishops to be mindful of the "sense of the faithful." I am gravely concerned that these new translations will further distance the congregation from full and active participation at Mass. Mass is a beautiful, invigorating and much needed respite to our tumultuous world, By elevating a literal and non-poetic translation, the Mass loses some of its quintessential beauty and partially impairs its secondary catechetical function. For over twenty years, I have taught basic theology to ninth graders. These translations make the work of the catechist harder. The Catechism of the Catholic Church quite clearly teaches that body/mind and soul are one. ("spirit and matter in man, are not two natures united but rather their union forms a single nature, CCC # 365)Yet the newly proposed phrase "Lord I am not worthy to received you under my roof, just say the word and my soul will be healed," inadvertently promotes a dichotomy between body and soul. If nothing else can be changed, please consider leaving the current phrase intact, i.e., ...just say the word and I will be healed. We must all present ourselves fully, wholly and in unity to the Lord at this sublime moment. The proposed translation will leave many wondering is my head a roof, does this refer to the roof of the Church etc and not understand the Biblical connection to the Roman Centurion's relative who was lowered into the house prior to Christ's healing. May the Holy Spirit continue to work in the Church and in the translation process.
John Esmerado | Lay Minister | Paterson, NJ | USA
 
After Vatican II, I remember feeling so excited by the "new mass." Now I could see what the priest was doing and understand what was being said by the celebrant and the people. I really experienced a renewed understanding of my faith. And I was only 12 years old! I can't begin to explain my sadness at the dismantling of the wonderful changes that were created during that time of renaissance. In my heart I know that this is not the will of the Lord Jesus; what is the point of distancing ourselves from our God? Didn't Jesus say, "Let the children come onto me." Is this really in our best interest as a faith family? As shepherds of the Church, what is your answer?
Margaret E. Lippe | Lay Person | Milwaukee | USA
 
I am very distressed about the new language. I think it will create barriers rather than enhance our liturgies. As a member of the the Parish Council as well as a Director on our Board of Directors, I ask that the Bishops take more time to review these changes and to pilot test them in selected parishes.
Jackie White | Lay Minister | Tucson | USA
 
I agree wholeheartedly with stopping this absurd (excuse me for being so harsh) movement to adopt language that is so bad. I have two sons 24 and 22, they go to Mass when they're home with us, but don't go otherwise. Trying to defend this to young people illustrates how ridiculous it is. It really bothers me that we're even discussing this. if they could have devoted as much time to living the principles Jesus lived by--caring about people, doing something about poverty and injustice, or just plain ol' loving your neighbor--we'd be spending all this time on that rather than archaic language that will alienate the youth. "And with your spirit"? You must be joking. Sorry, but i feel strongly about this.
Terry Wall | Lay Person | Camden | US
 
this idea is an old one that testing the translation over a period of time to see if the translation is doable is used in business and in ministry. it is a very inclusive method that hears everyones views. Why is the Catholic church afraid of this process. Do you not trust us anymore? I'm beginning to think that you, the institution ,do not like us anymore.
Eleanor | Lay Minister | Sacramento | United States
 
I beseech the bishops to keep working on the translations so that they are more understandable to the average catholic. I would also request that the bishops be mindful of English grammar and eliminate many of the run-on, lengthy sentences. They simply are not grammatically correct! Is it necessary too to remind the bishops that inclusive language is a must? (I never have been a "man" nor do I ever intend to be one!)
Joan M. Capen | Lay Person | St. Petersburg, FL | USA
 
Why didn't the bishops listen to Bishop Trautman? Our shepherds have become sheep.
Rev. John W. Milton, C.S.V. | Religious | Chicago | USA
 
I am a chair person for our parish council and we are studying the situation. The obvious question is, will this change be a net benefit to our worship as a parish or an obstacle? After reading the changes proposed I am not sure how this translation moves us forward to more enthusiastic participation than we now enjoy. My vote is wait until a tested version is clearly superior. This will be a distraction from our larger work as a council.
George Ryan | Lay Person | Milwaukee | USA
 
When we glorify and worship God through the offering of His Son, Jesus in the Holy Eucharist and the Holy words of Scripture, and the holy prayers of the Mass, we owe Him the very best that we have. Poor grammar and archaic word construction is not the very best that we have to offer God, the most holy one.
Katherine L. Walker | Lay Person | Las Cruces, NM | USA
 
I just wonder how much time and prayerful reflection was done on any of the translations. There are so many issues that we, the church, should be spending time on -- sexual abuse, the present economic situtation, global warming, health concerns, etc. Words, awkward words, are external and will not change us within. Should we be so concerned about externals? What will the new translation accomplish to deepen our relationship with one another, with the Lord.
Jean Makovsky | Religious | Metuchen | usa
 
The new translations are a violation of the trust that the 2nd Vat. council accorded to the ICEL I was the Secretary (executive) of the Justice and Peace Commission from 1978-1987. I worked very closely with Archbishop Denis Hurley during the years when he was the President of the SA Catholic Bishops' Conference and I know how much love and effort he put into his ICEL work. The new translations are like a slap in the face to a great son of Vatican 2 and a man of immense hoiness and integrity. When I attend Mass in English (which is not very often as I belong to a Zulu parish) I continue to respond in the ICEL way. I will never answer using the new translation. I am a loyal adult Catholic and will not be part of this nonsense. Besides there are many more important issues like Climate Change to spend one's time on. It would be wonderful if some of the Vatican authorities would concentrate on life threatening issues instead of trivia.
Marilyn Aitken | Lay Person | Mariannhill | South Africa
 
I fully support this important initiative. The revision of the Sacramentary in English has been too hastily initiated and will cause scandal to the Faithful if proceeded with.
Father Vincent A. Gallogley O.F.M. | Priest | Archdiocese of Mechelen-Brussel | Belgium
 
Simply not good enough for the sacred liturgy - must do better.
Fr Chris Chatteris SJ | Religious | Johannesburg | South Africa
 
Having already experienced the introduction of the new text in South Africa I can only say that it leaves a lot to be desired.
Jude Pieterse | Religious | Johannesburg | South Africa
 
It would seem to me that study by the people who are going to wear the words for a long time should be the first consideration of a community of love. Just wait - think - look - mull over - wait. Dawn
dawn wilson | Lay Person | Caloundra | Australia
 
As a travelling mission preacher I am constantly struck by the unhappiness of a majority of lay people about this new translation, some of which has already been implemented in South Africa. The recitation of the Nicene creed is a disaster!!! Morale is low. I have written to the bishops about the pastoral problems I see emerging, but they have ignored me. I would like my letter now to be made public.
Larry Kaufmann | Priest | Redemptorist | South Africa
 
Words have power to conceal and to reveal, to empower and to dis-empower and this means that access to language is an ethical issue. Meeting the spiritual needs of those assembled requires leadership on the part of the Bishops. It is hoped they will re-consider. Certainly the Bishops are in a better position to determine the most appropriate way for the Word to become flesh in this country
Judith Martin | Religious | Cincinnati | USA
 
Language in the Mass that is unusual makes the worship experience unreal. It encourages devotionalism and an esoteric spirituality. Thanks to Fr. Ryan for raising the issue.
Tony Schumacher | Priest | Madison,Wi | USA
 
The article is refreshing in that the author is questioning the relevancy and wisdom of imposing clumsy translations. As the mother of six adult children, most of whom have come to see the Church as out of touch with the people and lacking in love for many, it is truly disheartening to see the bishops embarking on some new foolishness that has meaning only for them. The world needs the love of Christ expressed through it's people. Why are the bishops involved in this when there are wars and hunger and hatred to be addressed. Why do they not realize that the flock has disbursed and they have lost relevance to so many who would be Catholics. While I remain in the fold, it is impossible to defend such irrelevant foolishness to those I have tried to raise to be Catholic. Rather than implore the bishops to wait, I would implore them to "get real."
Dorothy Clark | Lay Person | New York Archdiocese | United States
 
I believe that our Catholic community has been stretched to exhaustion in our Diocese due to the clergy scandal. I feel that another Church disruption would "break the camel's back". Statisticians inform us that the change agent for simple things is 6-7 years and, for more important changes, i.e. religious issues, is approx. 10-12 years. In my opinion enough is enough. Let people experience healing before forcing new verbiage upon them.
Maureen Fleming | Religious | Bridgeport | USA
 
An evaluation form is always part of the last day of our priests' convocation, and it usually contains a question about what themes should be addressed in the future. At the last convocation in November, I put down what I wanted to see and then added, at the behest of a neighbor at the table, "A review and discussion of the new Roman Missal, with permission to ignore it." I was ridiculed for unnecessarily sticking my neck out. Obviously, I have experienced your essay as affirmation and confirmation, and wholeheartedly second it.
James J. Suntum, SF | Priest | Santa Fe | U. S. A.
 
I heartily endorse waiting to implement the new translations. Field testing is a common practice in education, done when a new curriculum or assessment is being developed. Doing the same for translation of sacred text would help those who seek to make scripture beautifully poetic yet comprehensible. If it turns out that the proposed translations are foisted upon congregations ill prepared for what they'll hear, it may so confuse and anger congregants that they give up attending Catholic services, preferring to attend churches of other denominations. It could be, for many, the final straw.
Jeanne Bowman | Lay Person | Buffalo | USA
 
Some of the rationale presented for the translation makes some sense. However, the end product is so far removed from who we are and how we speak daily as human beings that these prayers will sound like play-acting -- an artificial exercise that will cause even greater numbers people to absent themselves from the liturgy of the church. The Lord's Prayer was never like that... Jesus gave us rather the language of common people to draw us to the Father and the mystery of his love.
Monsignor Andrew G. Varga | Priest | Bridgeport | USA

As a former English teacher (BA, LeMoyne College, MA, Manhattanville College) and parish minister/ RCIA coordinator in parishes in Michigan and Texas (M. Div, Immaculate Conception Seminary at Darlington, NJ, now at Seton Hall, NJ) I am amazed at the prospect that we are asking our people to pray in a language that is on every level foreign to them, and this without consultation in parishes or among the staffs that have worked so wholeheartedly to enable people to enter into liturgy with full and active participation. Why are the principles of subsidiarity and dialogue being cast aside? In the area of worship we are indeed at the summit and fount of faith--lex orandi, lex credendi. I respectfully support full consultation of the faithful--the sensus fidelium should be heeded in this area because the faith of the people in the pews is the ultimate test of legitimacy here. I am grateful for this opportunity to speak.
Anonymous | Religious | Albany, NY | USA
 
Let me get this straight. Some twenty-one hundred plus prelates met every morning, and prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance, and the closest vote on any article was something like 2100 for and 23 against, and now they say that was in error? What was the Holy Spirit doing? Lying to us? Deliberately misleading us? Because he doesn't love us? I don't think so. Those who try to distort the will of the Spirit do so at their peril.
Anonymous | Lay Minister | Washington, D. C. | USA
 
The Insanity of saying a Liturgy in a language the congregation does not understand is --well insane. Please stop with the further power grab, controlling schemes. Please come off the throne and live, walk and talk like Jesus did. The old tactics of brainwashing won't work anymore. Edie Hunt
Edie Hunt | Lay Person | Sy Vincent de Paul San Diego | United States
 
It is inconceivable to me that the Church would initiate a major change in the way we worship without any input from those of us who are doing the worshiping. You are opening the door to the belief that we are, indeed, a sinking ship.
Karen A. Hughes | Lay Person | Milwaukee | USA
 
Our church needs to be a place, a home - a center for community, prayer, reflection, action, peace. Becoming more stringent and tightening the reins are not the ways to keep mature, thoughtful, prayerful people as members of the Church. I continue to remind myself that "we are the church - we, the people of God."
Ann Hirt | Lay Person | Cincinnati | USA
 
I wish to offer my wholehearted support for Fr. Ryan's eminently sane and pastorally sensitive position on the issue of the new missal, as well as his reminder that Vatican II, an Ecumenical Council whose majority of world wide bishops, revivified a basic tenet: the Church is not the exclusive preserve of the hierarchy but is the embodiment of Christ's body - in short, every baptized Christian.
Vincent Poirier | Priest | Boston | USA
 
Let's not go backwards! If we want young people to stay with us, we must stay in the present world and look to the future. That is where they live. They have no knowledge of the ols latin, latin Mass etc. Anyway, I think our social justice problems are a lot more important that changing these translations. Spend energy on important matters.
Mary l. grace | Lay Person | buffalo | usa
 
If I could have some dialogue with the Pope and those who have developed this text for the People of God to use in our worship, I would be truthful, open, respectful, and inoffensive. However, those in church authority may find this discussion quite controversial. In reality, the missal translations are one more example of the toxic nature of the Roman hierarchical culture. For most people, the parish is how they identify "church." Most people are not concerned about the activities of the Vatican. Nevertheless, Rome and others insist on holding the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and treat church members as less important, less informed and less gifted. Truly, these are neither honorable traits nor a stable "commitment to theology" which requires a spiritual effort to grow in virtue and holiness.  It has been said that the opposite of trust is not mistrust, but fear. Often parents do not trust their children, because they fear their parenting was inadequate. By trapping them with imprisoning rules, these children may be safe for a short while, but, in the long run, they will have lost that real, long term security that comes from developing critical thinking skills and sound decision-making. The parenting style from Rome is considerably restrictive, burdensome and uncharacteristic of Christ, who exemplifies that --True authority is service, not power; Fostering faith depends upon principles of healthy growth, not merely weed control; Trust encourages strength and understanding, not weakness and blind association. By definition, authority in the Church is "the power, the right, and the responsibility of directing individuals or groups to attain the kingdom" (Dwyer). Rather than continue to perpetuate immense rulings and teachings, the appointed leadership could shape the spiritual personality of the Church by encouraging souls to grow "more deeply into God that (they) may better expand toward humanity" (Underhill). Indeed, the people of God are hungry for fit leaders who will influence with compassion and faith, competence and confidence so that we can become the believing community God intends us to be. I now ask the Pope, the Committee on Divine Worship and the approving Bishops.  Who will bear the burden of the cost to follow through with these changes at the parish level?  Is your authority based upon power and control or grounded in service and compassion?  Have you lost touch with us who truly want to worship together in a natural and holy way?  Will foreign text that is awkward, absent in spirit and meaning, lead us closer to God?  Are you listening to the needs of the People of God?
Anonymous | Lay Minister | Albany | USA
 
We need to test drive this change in language. It will not fly . It will only serve to isolate, offend, and offer more change when people are still growing in their comfort with the church in light of the scandals in administration. To the people and to myself we are not forging a liturgy of the people, but a liturgy of archaic language and ritual which ignores the people as the Body of Christ.
Rev. Charles G Zabler | Priest | Milwaukee | usa
 
This seems to be another effort to close the windows opened by Vatican II.
Marge Leathers | Lay Person | Fort Worth | USA
 
In these days when parishioners don't get the Real Presence in the Eucharist and struggle with relating biblical principles to life, this is NOT the time to introduce old English formal expressions as an emphasis in our parishes!
Anne Julie White | Lay Minister | Philadelphia | USA
 
In our diocese, we are encouraging inactive Catholics to come back to the Church in the Catholics Come Home campaign. I am not encouraged by the backward step of the Vatican in using outdated and incomprehensible language in upcoming modifications of the liturgy. What are we inviting inactive Catholics back to? The same issues that probably made them leave in the first place.
Sue Geegan | Lay Person | chicago, IL | USA
 
Not now; not ever!
Geraldine Maloney,O.P. | Religious | Saginaw, MI | USA
 
The power of language to transform hearts is not disconnected from the aesthetic. Words carefully crafted can have the power of performative utterance, whereas words clumsily thrown together in adherence to literal translation often become a distraction and a deterrent to spreading the Good News...
Matt Lohmeier | Lay Minister | St. Petersburg | USA
 
Our worship is an expression of our life as Catholics, as Christians. Our worship must, therefore be an expression of our reality, inculturated, before the great mystery of God. The recently approved text is woefully inadequate and must be reviewed and changed to enhance our experience of worship.
Janet Gardner | Religious | Pittsburgh, PA | USA
 
The problem is not with the Vatican II Council, but with the undoing of the council's Spirit-directed work.
Susan Masiak | Lay Person | Detroit, Michigan | USA
 
The People of God should be consulted before changes of this magnitude are made to so critical an aspect of their prayer life.
Claire Gareau | Lay Person | Paterson | USA
 
I have great concern about the nature of the new translation, as well as over the process that has produced it. Both are pastorally flawed in the extreme. I strongly favor delaying the project, so that a more adequate process might produce a better translation, one that is worthy both of the liturgy itself, and of God's people who celebrate it.
Rev. Kevin F. X. Duggan | Priest | Seattle | USA
 
These changes in the liturgy are SO unnecessary. If our bishops need something to do, maybe they could help the faithful wipe out poverty or end war or stop global warming. No, they'll probably just leave those things to Jesus. After all, they're bishops--they've got more important things to do. Bravo, Fr. Ryan!
Page Augustus Salazar | Lay Person | Washington, DC | USA
 
"Liturgy" (liturgia) means "the peoples' work". The entire people of God pray the Mass together with the priest celebrant, and they need to pray it in their own vocabulary and in expressions and concepts that are part of their culture and their daily lives.. One of the greatest accomplishments of Vatican II was the reform of the liturgy to this about.. In my opinion (as a professor of theology), the crowning result in the Eucharist prayer itself has been realized in Eucharistic Prayer II, expressing in simple contemporary language the ancient Roman prayer of St. Hippolytus. An attempt to take us back to the style of the Middle Ages will weaken the spirit and the perceived meaning of our hghest action before God.
Dr. Hamilton Hess | Lay Person | Santa Rosa (California) | USA
 
I feel that the bishops failed to represent our people and us. I cannot believe that Bishop Trautman and his commission could be so ignored and some group from a Roman commission could tell English speaking people how to pray in English. It is shameful and arrogant, disrespectful of all the wonderful work of the ICEL staff from around the world which was truly diligent. This must be stopped.
Rev. Edward Byrne | Priest | Archdiocese of New York | USA
 
As a lector at St. Michael Church in Exeter, N. H., I considered that most of my responsibility was to present the readings as clearly and as understandably as I could, using everything I knew as a college instructor of public speaking, incorporating pauses and vocal intonation as well as clear pronunciation to communicate the frequently very complex language. It is essential that people understand the readings as part of their total experience of the service. A translation which makes the readings even more difficult to understand will not help the congregation feel part of the liturgy.
Pat Parnell | Lay Minister | New Hampshire | U. S. A.
 
Dear Bishops, With all the struggles in the church you serve and the number of Catholics who have left this same church, how about listening to the lay people who are still trying to hang in? Empty hearts result in empty pews. Have a heart, Bishops, listen to us. We don't need the liturgical changes you are planning to announce. We need you and the priest to create meaningful, alive and welcoming liturgies. That is all it takes...build community around it and we'll all stay in the church for a lifetime.
Nancy and Hank Coyle | Lay Person | Lafayette ,IN | USA
 
I am so appreciative for the request to wait....and I pray that this petition receive a listening heart. Having been a teacher of religion for many years, I hear the comments of those in prayer formation .Their language must truly express their heart and their vision if it is to be real. Substituting formality or foreign (Latin) twists in sentence construction will simply marginalize them and myself from meaningful prayer. Please, please hear the cry of the poor!
RoseMarie Levesque | Lay Person | Worcester, Massachusetts | USA
 
Let my people go.
Mike Gajda | Lay Person | Lansing Michigan | USA
 
It would be wise to wait before undoing the work of so many years to achieve what we have.
Andre R Boulanger | Priest | Phoenix | USA
 
As an academically trained biblical scholar I know the importance of translations that not only are faithful to the original languages but are also immediately intelligible to the recipient audience. There are numerous instances of translations of the Roman Missal that miss the mark with regard to immediate intelligibility for English speaking audiences.
Bernard F. Batto | Lay Minister | Indianapolis | USA
 
Full disclosure, I was a priest in the Seattle Archdiocese for 12 years and resigned in 1992. I studied liturgy at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of San Anselmo in Rome during my time in the seminary at the North American College in Rome. One of the things that concerns me the most about all the "changes", not only in the wording but the rubrics of the Eucharistic Liturgy as well is what I see as the misuse of the word "traditional" or "traditionalist" . It seems to me that the Vatican II Council was very traditional in its approach to a renewal of the church but used that term in referring to the Apostolic Tradition, not the Council of Trent or some other historic marker. It is why we have restored rites like the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, the RCIA. One of our Archdiocesan priests, Fr. Jim Dunning, at a training for the North American Forum on the Catechumenate stated it this way regarding the wording of the liturgical texts: "There is a contract", he said" between the presider and the assembly. When you start changing the words, you break that contract and the people no longer know their part." (it was years ago and I hope that I am quoting Fr. Dunning correctly). His message was clear and stands today in this current situation as well. There are many MAJOR issues in our church community today. The language of the Eucharistic Liturgy is not one of them.
Thomas Allsopp | Lay Person | Seattle | USA
 
As a retired university professor of Latin and Modern Languages, it would be very difficult for me to recite texts in community prayers or private prayers which contain linguistic flaws which, had my students made them, would have earned them rather low grades on their papers.
Heribert Breidenbach | Lay Person | Chicago | USA
 
We live in the 21st century. We are educated, committed Christians who need to participate and be listened to by our clergy. We are just as much the church as they are. We are just as committed and concerned for the Gospel message as they are. The Risen Christ calls all of us to the table at this moment in time. The Latin liturgy had its time and place. We need a new and dynamic liturgy that integrates our knowledge and understanding of God and God's magnificent cosmos. We are going forward into the future, not retreating back into the past.
Larry Paulik | Lay Person | Kalamazoo | USA
 
Outrageous - but not surprising!
Barbara Moore | Lay Person | Minneapolis/St. Paul | USA
 
As any careful translator knows, a literal translation nearly always either loses the sense of the original, results in archaic language, or both. Coming at a time when there are so many more important issues for Catholicism to address, will this effort not be seen by many as an attempt to avoid constructively facing these other issues?
Dr. Astrid M. O'Brien | Lay Person | New York | U. S. A.
 
How can we sufficiently thank Fr. Ryan, Bishop Trautman, and others who are trying to save us from the fiasco of this archaic translation!! As a former teacher of Latin, I realize that we would not have allowed such an incoherent, literal translation from even high school freshmen. Please give this work to some scholars of English and liturgy. Dominicans Paul Philibert and Gerard Austin, to name a few.
Frances Krumpelman, SCN | Religious | Louisville, KY | USA
 
I am now a married layman, but I was ordained in 1978 and served with a religious order for 11 years. As poor liturgical music (or poorly performed music) is an impediment to worship, I believe that awkward grammar and archaic vocabulary will hamper the spirituality of all in attendance.
Paul Gaudet | Lay Person | Boston | United States
 
I commend Fr. Ryan for his accurate assessment of the negative impact the translation will have on our people's liturgical experience. Artistry is an essential component of worship and all its elements. To allow anything less than nobility of linguistic expression is to betray our liturgical tradition. I subscribe to the grassroots effort to revisit the proposed changes by exposing them to select groups for reaction and evaluation.
E. Donald Osuna | Priest | Oakland | USA
 
I urge our Bishops to be strong enough to "WAIT" - Bishop Trautman who knows the liturgy better than any US Bishop needs to be listened to. Let us unite in waiting, seeing how this unprecedented change pans out.
Marilyn Shea | Religious | Archdio. of Louisville, KY | USA
 
I have been trained in theology with an emphasis on the Vatican II Documents and regret the movement of regression to Trent, especially in the Liturgy. It was disheartening to have the Tridentine Mass "approved" - it is disheartening to see our young priests trying to pray in Latin without a hint of pronunciation or understanding. I stand strongly in unison with WAITING - with "piloting" this new translations. Vatican II offered "full and active" participation. These translations do not encourage such.
Marlene Lehmkuhl | Religious | Archdio. of Louisville, KY | USA
 
I am often struck by the profound beauty of the liturgy as it is currently translated. The truths of our faith are stated understandably in a manner most conducive to prayer. Please reconsider the proposed changes to translation.
Andrea Gagliani | Lay Minister | Chicago | USA
 
I am often amused and dismayed by televangelists, who use the King James Version, explaining what the language means, and I have thought 'I'm sure glad we Catholics are not tripping over a language barrier like they are.' Now I am wondering, 'Is this where we're headed?'
Peter M. Gideon | Priest | Columbus | U.S.
 
The new translations are unprayable and are couched in language that is obscure and archaic. As it stands, I have spoken with many Catholics who attend Mass weekly. As they realize how bad the new Sacramentary is, they are disgusted and many have stated that they will stay away. Why should we pray in a way that it will take a degree in theology to under stand what it all means. The new translation is a violation of the rights of the People of God to be able to pray in a way that lifts them up. This work is not what people need or want. Dear Bishops: Stand up and be men, not slaves to those who have no idea of what good clear understandable English is.
John and Roberta Hydar | Lay Person | Los Angeles | United States
 
LUMEN GENTIUM: #12 The holy people of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" * they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth.
Ubald Duchesneau | Priest | Oblate of Mary Immaculate | Canada
 
Jesus spoke in a way that all could understand and relate to. Shouldn't our church follow his lead?
Mimi Harman | Lay Minister | Kansas City St. Joseph | USA
 
what is a bishop these days? what happened to real leadership? who are these strangers with the pointed caps?
Nathan Hess | Lay Person | Cincinnati | USA
 
Dear Bishops, Please wait a bit before you promulgate the recent liturgical translations, or at least let the people pray them for a bit and then offer feedback before they become official I ask this because I know of no other way of informing the people that the liturgy is indeed the prayer of the people. Thank you, bishops, for your consideration and for all the good you do our church.
Rev. William Faiella, csc | Priest | Phoenix | USA
 
I am a Parish Council member in a multicultural suburban parish of over 4,000 families. I am also old enough to remember the pre-Vatican II church and the Tridentine liturgy, in both Latin and English translation. The proposed Missal translation will NOT be welcomed in my parish by the priests or the people, many of whom are recent immigrants having enough trouble with standard English, much less clumsy, archaic renderings of Latin by translators whose own English is less than native. This ideologically-motivated proposal is an assault on Anglophone Catholics everywhere, and yet another case of our discredited, out-of-touch, pharisaical Roman hierarchy shooting the whole church in the foot with another needless scandal. It strips away still more of the few shreds of credibility our American bishops have left. Can anyone doubt that the sheep have been turned over to the hired hands, whose voice is not that of the Good Shepherd? Remember: according to Jesus, it is we the sheep who discern who is or is not the legitimate shepherd! Toss these translations now, and let us all get back to building the Kingdom.
Daryl P. Domning | Lay Person | Washington, D.C. | USA
 
Here is the partial text I sent to a priest I know who alerted me to this proposal - Obviously, you're much closer to this problem (note I use "problem" vice "situation") than I am, as I have only had time to scan and skim over the general parameters of the problem. Nonetheless, although it is early in my investigation and inquiry, the following questions present themselves with some urgency: 1. What conceited Curia cabal of pinheads came up with this revision? Toward what end? What made them think it was broken and needed fixing in the first place? (Granted, the first version from V-II did require some fine-tuning - I seem to recall we had a lot of yoo-hoos at first ("...you who"...), but that was quickly addressed and taken care of.) 2. Who gave the aforementioned group a copy of "Dilbert's Top Secret Management Manual" and told them to be guided by it? 3. A more literal translation from the Latin begs the question: Why is Latin a dead language? Because it was clumsy, cumbersome and did not lend itself to clear communication in a manner which would enhance, rather than interfere with, true communication. 4. I see a lot of private priorities in the promulgation of the "revision" (curious word, that - Does not actually reflect the pronounced lack of vision involved here), but frankly, unlike in the at first radical and revolutionary change to our liturgy in the '60s, there is no sense of the Spirit at work in this. 5. I would strongly suggest that Fr. Ryan dig out his original draft of "What If We Just Said No?" and dust it off for possible immediate application. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Church is, or should be, a democracy. I fully and firmly believe that the Church is a true Theocracy, led and driven by the Holy Spirit as the wisdom is given us to understand that Spirit. I believe Vatican II was clearly so driven. I do not feel the same is true in the present instance, and I have an obligation to object against those who would attempt to thwart such grace-filled understanding, and instead substitute their own "good intentions" for the Grace of the Spirit. (Don't worry - I'm not about to go the Martin Luther route and abandon the Church I've known for the past 60-some years, but I truly feel that a this will be the straw that broke the camel's back for many of the laity who feel increasingly alienated from the Church they love by an executive administration which displays an increasing insensitivity to, and lack of concern for the true spiritual concerns of those in the pews as wall as those who serve them.)
Thomas C. Roark | Lay Person | Nashville, TN | USA
 
I support Fr. Ryan's suggestion to proceed cautiously and to to trial run the proposed changes within select parishes throughout the country and review the reactions and prayfullness attributes of the proposed changes. Thank you for giving the laity the opportunity to voice and comment. We all share in the Priesthood of Jesus, whether ordained or not. Prayer must flow from the heart of the community. Slavish translation ought not be the goal as much as to enflame the heart of the community to genuine prayer and worship.
George Trejos | Lay Minister | Ogdensburg | United States
 
Having lived through the various changes in liturgy and attitude over the years, it seems to me that where we are now is a good place to be. I loved the Latin Mass, but love the English one even more. Why change something that works so well? It would be nice to have our voices heard and considered for a change.
Barbara G. White | Lay Person | Rochester, NY | USA
 
I have been involved in liturgy since my grade school years when I passed out song cards for benediction. I have written a column for our diocesan newspaper for over twenty-two years. I have been a Eucharist minister, a leader of music, and reader. I have just finished writing commentary for Sunday readings for Celebrate! magazine. I tell you this only to show my long involvement and love of the Liturgy. The new translation to be used in Mass adheres to old Latin, not the language most easily understood by today's English speaking Catholics. Our concern should be for increased participation and engagement of the people in the communal celebration, not how closely we can come to preserving language patterns of the past. i hope you will join me in supporting the voice of English speaking Catholics who are asking for consideration and consultation before implementing the new translation.
Mary van Balen-Holt | Lay Person | Columbus Ohio | United States
 
Are these proposed 'new' translations the ones recommended by the USA bishops conference? I thought Vatican II and subsequent documents stated that the Council of Bishops could recommend and set appropriate liturgical translations and practices. Why are we are going back to the word for word translations of Latin documents?
Robert E Sullivan | Lay Person | Milwaukee | USA
 
I am a retired Professor of Music at the University of Pennsylvania, specializing in medieval music, liturgy, and spirituality. The translation that Rome seeks to impose is archaic in tone, scarcely intelligible to modern English-speakers. It must not be introduced until the laity are heard from.
Thomas H. Connolly | Lay Person | Philadelphia | USA
 
Let the refreshing voices of Vatican II be heard once again, and let the reforms be handled by the spirit of the giants who guided the Church in those early years. Engaging the people of God in the pews with beauty and understanding must be primary, not be obscured by beauty and poor communication, and certainly not by lack of beauty and poor understanding. I've never seen the Last Supper depicted with Jesus's back to his apostles or feeding them Living Bread with their hands behind their backs. dc
Dino Capone | Lay Person | New York City | USA
 
A flawed process, an unworthy product, a grave error with possibly irreversible consequences. All still avoidable. Please.
Rick Hardy | Lay Minister | Orange | USA
 
Today is the 56th anniversary of my entry to the Church. It was the best decision of my life. During this time I have been active in the Cursillo Movement, Christ Renews His Parish and Life in the Spirit. It is MY Church, too. We need representation in any decision that affects us all. Thank you.
Bethany Stratman | Lay Person | Cincinnati | USA
 
Some of these translations show a lack of cultural aspects of translating; e.g. "and with your spirit" is a Mediterranean idiom referring to the individual person, but NOT in American English. In classical Arabic, for example, we say "how is your soul" for "how are you". The previous "and also with you" could have been changed to "and with you" and be much more accurate than the anachronism "and with your spirit"! Such a gross oversight on the part of the translators leads me to question their competence altogether. It's like taking a high school Latin student and giving him/her the job of translating our sacred liturgy, with only a dictionary, but no maturity, sophistication in the use of linguistic idioms, or cultural awareness. Duh!!!!
Gerald Milkie | Lay Person | Detroit | USA
 
This is not a matter for waiting and testing. It should be REJECTED. The whole idea of getting a word-for-word translation of a particular Latin liturgical text from a particular medieval period amounts to idolatry. The Roman Missal is not a part of the canon of sacred scripture. To make it the once and for all time and all places the norm for Catholic worship violates the letter and spirit of the OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ENUNCIATED AT VATICAN II. Can some little committee or even the Pope do that???
Anne Brennan | Lay Person | Chicago | USA
 
I am a Theology student, and I am learning all of the excellent Catholic theological terms, like "consubstantial". However, I am also a lover of good writing and I know the importance of good translation. There is a very important place for technical, theological writing. There is an equally important place for prayers which hold the truth not only in their dogmatic purity, but also in their beauty. Writing is an art--not a science. Clarity in writing is born of both sound intellect AND Spirit-led intuition. Prayers MUST spring from both the mind AND soul.
Rio Betz Parfrey | Lay Person | Los Angeles | USA
 
I worry most about our youth and young adults. Liturgical language and some scripture selections (without explanation) already distance this age group. I am embarrassed by the examples in this article from America. Implementing these changes now has the potential to further silence adult engagement in our parishes as it has among our bishops.
Sr. Anne Wente | Religious | San Diego | USA
 
I am a linguist --- and a translator. These translations aren't going to do what they are supposed to do (which I assume is improve the liturgy) unless they are carefully vetted, reviewed, and refined. Don't make this mistake. Use caution --- lots of it ---as you proceed.
Elizabeth Siler | Lay Person | Spokane | United States
 
Up until now I've been very happy in ministry, with no thought of retirement other than for reasons of health. The prospect of having to promote this translation, especially after experience with the current deeply flawed Lectionary translation, has me seriously thinking to request retirement at the earliest possible moment, 772 days from now (but who's counting?) I have 42 years of experience in bilingual ministry, more than half of that on a daily basis. I had extensive seminary training in Latin and Greek, and a smattering of Hebrew. I know what goes into honest translation. What we have before us, both in the current Lectionary and in the proposed Sacramentary, is far from that. Thank you for your effort to help us avoid blundering into this trap.
Michael Burton Roark | Priest | Wilmington | USA
 
Our people who remain in the Church , committed and generous, despite so much pain from scandals, poorly prepared homilies and pomp, deserve the richness of the liturgy that they have come to love. The examples given of the new translation are pathetic. The suggestion of trying the proposed translation in limited parishes sounds wise. Even the cost of such materials is prohibitive. While home in D.C. I visited the liturgy office and was astounded at the efforts to bring this forth NOW. God bless our Church with wise, loving and holy priests.
Joan Matthews,SP | Religious | Indianapolis, IN | USA
 
Yes, let us wait! This is so important! Let us learn from the sadness and incredulity of many, many South Africans who have followed the history of the ICEL and who cannot in all conscience accept what has happened, and what is happening.
Celia kourie | Lay Person | Pretoria | South Africa
 
This imposition from Rome confounds priests here - what will the laity think of it? I doubt if they will see any purpose in the exercise.
Alan Wilson | Priest | Galloway | Scotland
 
I am an Episcopal Priest with grave concerns for the ecumenical implications of the new translations of the Roman Missal. I hold an M.A. in Liturgical Studies from Saint John's University, Collegeville, MN, and am currently working on a Ph.D. in the same field at the University of Notre Dame. Although we're a long way and a work of the Holy Spirit from full visible unity, yet there has been something meaningful--to me, at least--in knowing that although we gather in different churches on the Lord's Day, we pray the same Creed, sing the same Gloria, make the same responses, etc. I think what responsible progress we have made toward Christian unity will be hampered in the English-speaking countries of the world by the imposition of this new translation. Everything that I have learned about liturgy, everything I have learned about Vatican II (which I admire), is being challenged or disregarded in the systematic rejection of the Council. It boggles my mind. You have my support, my prayers, and my fraternal charity. God bless your efforts on behalf of your people.
Anonymous | Priest | Episcopal Diocese of New York | USA
 
I am hopeful that this, too, shall pass.
Barry Grinnell | Lay Person | Washington DC | USA
 
Could not agree more. Several priests have told me they would, if necessary, keep their current sacramentaries and use them, refusing to use the new translations. I posed several examples of the proposed changes to my parishioners. Everyone of them was bewildered and some horrified. Please accept my prayers and support.
James P. Walker | Priest | Youngstown, Ohio | USA
 
When will our Church leaders learn how to deal with an educated laity ? I am afraid that there is a voice which has yet to be heard in high places. Given the pain, confusion, and hemorrhage which we are seeing these days it is a wonder that Rome and the Bishops give so much attention to a literal translation of our prayer. We should be grateful that people still want to gather and pray.
Clem Connolly | Priest | Los Angeles Calif. | USA
 
Those of us who are Pastors, especially, are going to have an unbelievable time trying to explain this to our parishioners ... who are very educated people. This is going to be a nightmare ... trying to explain to them that we have to change our wonderfully comfortable and prayerful liturgy into a "language" and "wording" that no body uses! It is obvious that those that translated are completely unfamiliar with American language usage. And, it is even MORE obvious that the 98% of American bishops who voted for this DIDN'T READ IT!!! What is the rush? Why the hurry? Let's slow it down, and continue to study. I have no idea how I am supposed to "sell" this new language. And, trust me when I tell you all, they will NOT buy the usual, "Well, the bishops said we had to do this."
Very Rev. John J. Detisch, V.F. | Priest | Erie, PA. | USA
 
Throw out the new translation team from Rome and get experts to do the job.
Gerald P. Wilmsen | Priest | Missionary Society of St. Columban | USA
 
"Now, jes' you wait, ya' hear!"; That's the way we'd say it down here in rural Georgia where I am on loan to Glenmary. Mike, an EXCELLENT idea, to have a year's pastoral exposure / testing of this major change! Rome was able to wear down the resistance of the American bishops. They're not going to be able to wear down thousands of priests, religious and lay people from throughout the English-speaking world. "No suh!"
Rev. Robert M. Beirne | Priest | Providence | USA
 
The new Boeing 787 promises to be a step forward in flight but the plane must undergo extensive testing before the public is allowed to fly in it. Shouldn't we do the same with the Liturgy which is much more important than a plane? I endorse Fr. Ryan's proposal.
Michael McDermott | Priest | Seattle | USA
 
Fr. Ryan is doing a service for the church, the church being the People of God. From what I have seen of the translations, the most egregious is the change in the words of institution from "poured out for ALL" to "poured out for MANY." I have always been taught, believed, and lived, that catholic means universal - all. It pains me to see exclusivity overcoming inclusivity.
Elizabeth Glynn | Lay Person | Cincinnati Ohio | US
 
Considering the variety of translations in evidence historically, any new translation should be tested orally and reviewed by theologians, grammarians and the listening public. There should be a balance between liberal 'interpretative translations and literal translations in order to create an understandable text that preserves the meaning of the original.
John J. Ryan SJ | Religious | Buffalo | USA
 
I have no fidelity whatever to the language of Pontius Pilate, Nero and Imperial Rome.
Pam Wearing | Lay Person | Westminster | UK
 
The bad experience that followed upon the very first experimental translations of the liturgy in the late 1960's should lead Church leaders to proceed very cautiously in introducing new translations into the liturgy. This is all the more true especially when there is reason to fear that the proposed changes will alienate even further Catholics who have grown wary of the wisdom of Church leadership. I support the suggestion to do extensive "testing" of some of the changes. Otherwise the leadership will bear full responsibility for the consequences and will find little sympathy or understanding for having ignored wise counsel. Malachi 3:1-4
George E. Griener, S.J. | Priest | Oakland | USA
 
My husband and I and our friends --all in our 60s and 70s have been thriving spiritually as members of the post Vatican II generation. We are involved in prayer groups that employ lectio divina, we are providing direct service to the poor as members of the Ignatian Volunteer Corps, etc. Whenever the church appears to act in a pastoral manner, it can't help but attract more people who want to learn about Christ. When it doesn't appear to be listening to its members, it loses credibility and influence. Please wait, set up a pilot project, and find out whether the new translation feeds present day Catholics souls. I would note in particular that many Catholics whose native language is not English nevertheless must hear Mass in English -- will they not be further deprived by changes?
Julia S. Albrecht | Lay Person | Washington, d.c. | USA
 
In Argentina happens the same. The new missal, already in use never reach before the implementation any level of test from the priests or lay people. Is not so terrible as it may seem the new English translation but the autocracy from Rome is completely contrary to the Vatican II's spirit. My solidarity
Anonymous | Deacon | Quilmes | Argentina
 
I was just entering high school when the liturgical changes were implemented. Even though there was supposed to be catechesis regarding the changes it came down to the pastor as to whether or not that happened. Even if some attempt was made to catechize the people the quality of that catechesis ranged from excellent to disastrous. To this day the quality of liturgy varies from parish to parish, depending on the liturgical sense of the presider, the preparedness of the ministers, and the quality of the music. All of these factors influence the full, conscious and active participation of the people, who no longer feel that the celebration of the Eucharist is "father's thing." People want to be part of this celebration of giving thanks and praise. We do not want our faces stuck once again in a book struggling to pronounce words and phrases that will diminish rather than enhance our prayer. As a teenager, to be able to prayer with one voice in my own language freed me to pray rather than say prayers. I anticipate being asked to return to the days of saying prayers rather than actually praying. My gut response is to respectfully but firmly say, "No." The People of God deserve better.
Katie Murphy | Lay Minister | Biloxi | United States
 
What you have said needs saying - and even more strongly. I recommend p.295 of Paddy Kearney biography of Archbishop Denis Hurley, 'Guardian of the Light' (Continuum 2009). Denis Hurley, one of the founding fathers of ICEL, following Vatican II, wrote: "At times I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the Roman Curia. It seems to be more concerned with power than with humble service... Why are such people promoted to positions of authority where they seem to be promoting hier ego rather than the Church! May the Lord come to our help."
Kevin T Kelly | Priest | Liverpool | UK
 
I am in complete and utter disagreement with the content and form of the updated Roman Missal. It flies in the face of everything that the Second Vatican Council said about full and active participation of the laity and a rejection of subsidiarity, collegiality and cultural adaptation.
Rev. James E. Piszker | Priest | Erie | USA
 
My experience of the energy and hope of Vatican II is similar to Father Ryan's. Thank you for the article in America and the chance to respond. I too feel the vision that nourished our spiritual life is little by little being dismantled probably out of fear. If God is for us what do we have to fear?
Mary Eileen Quinn | Religious | Charleston | USA
 
The prayers of the Mass, as they stand now, are entirely filled with Grace. They should remain so. Please just let it be.
Tyrone Heade | Lay Person | Western Washington | USA
 
What a great idea! WAIT. THINK. REVIEW. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. How novel!
Fr. Charles Fischer | Priest | Kalamazoo, Michigan | USA
 
I am retired from 40 years of full time pastoral ministry. I still teach theology, give retreats and workshops, and work as a consultant as needed. Please consider this request as coming from my pastoral heart.
Anonymous | Lay Person | Baltimore | USA
 
Seratelli is our bishop so I'd prefer to remain anonymous, but Amen to all you wrote.
Anonymous | Priest | Paterson, NJ | Morris
 
I applaud this idea and suggest further that we look to see that the proposed language is inclusive. At the recent Synod of African Bishops a brave African religious invited the Bishops to close their eyes and imagine a Church without women. Could our Bishops do the same?
Maureen Quinn, SSMN | Religious | Buffalo | U.S.
 
The apostles asked Jesus how to pray. If he had answered like this, they would have said, "What?!" Are we to file into church, recite strange phrases, wait patiently until we are allowed to leave, and then walk quickly out and breathe in some fresh air, glad that it's all over?
Gerry MacCamy | Lay Person | Archdiocese of Western Washington | USA
 
I am retired and minister to the elderly. I can't imagine making these changes with these dear older people. Why? What is the advantage, the purpose as we all long to be closer to God and more at peace and a better witness of God's love in the world? We have such major issues to attend to in our Church. How will this draw people to us and heal some of the horrible pain God's people have been experiencing? God's people need encouragement and support and do not to be subjected to language changes that do not enrich and bless their prayer lives and make the Mass more meaningful. Yes, please let us pause and pray and think about this. Please, please! Listen to the people and how they are hurting and what is important to them on their faith journey.
Father John McGrann | Priest | Portland, OR | United States
 
Is this the best we can do?
Todd Yak | Lay Person | Edmonton | Canada
 
I remember the deep joy I felt the first time I recited the Gloria and Creed at Mass in my own native tongue, understanding what I was saying, word for word. To impose upon us convoluted and archaic language aimed to mirror an ancient "vulgate" text is deeply troubling to me. The purpose of liturgy is heart felt prayer - praise and thanksgiving; unintelligible texts do not serve communion with God nor invite unity among the people of God. Please, do not go forward with this translation.
Frances White, SHCJ | Religious | Los Angeles | USA
 
Please take this request to heart, as community prayer is, in itself, the heartbeat of a parish. The recent "narrowing" of our church direction is disheartening to those (such as myself) who believe that Vatican II opened doors and minds. This proposed "narrowing" of our liturgical prayers will not have a positive impact on our communities. Please, I repeat, take this request to heart. Thank you.
Kathleen Glynn | Lay Person | Kansas City/St. Joseph | USA
 
I so appreciate this place to write our concerns. As a lay person who has a great love for the liturgy and our sacraments I feel totally disenfranchised from the process which determined this new translation. I consider the translations to be very bad, awkward English -- not the beautiful, easy to understand language for which I had hoped. As far as I'm concerned these translations were written with a hidden agenda -- a way for the Vatican to begin to re-establish much tighter control over us. I have three sons who say this is the last straw for them. This language leaves them cold. Their peers say the same thing to me. Are we really willing to give up on the next generation so easily? The incomprehensible translations, the run on sentences don't have anything to do with spirituality but are simply a measure of power from the top. I suggest the bishops consult a few High School English teachers and -- which is what they should have done in the first place. 20 years of waiting for this? Again, thank you very much - David Carlson, Santa Rosa
David Carlson | Lay Person | Santa Rosa, California | US
 
As a person who cares about words and language, I am appalled that our U.S. bishops were so casual in their approval of the new missal. God bless Bishop Trautman for his work on behalf of all of us.
Sharron Morita | Lay Person | Camden, NJ | United States
 
I clearly remember attending my first liturgy in English, in a small town in Lapeer, Michigan. I cried tears of Joy. What we pray and how we pray is not a small matter. Any major changes deserve consideration, consultation and a listening heart. I support "waiting" and consultation.
Mary Jo Wise | Religious | San Francisco | USA
 
Fr Ryan - You and I are contemporaries. I couldn't agree with you more. I was student Master of Ceremonies for our Major Seminary in my 3rd & 4th Theology years (1961-93). I practiced with the "Solemn High Mass" servers every week to make sure everyone followed the rubrics to the letter. And, if they made a mistake during the Mass ceremonies, it was my task to "enlighten" them, so that mistake wouldn't happen again. I did my "job" faithfully, since there was no other way. I also conducted the testing of the Deacons for two years, as to how to "say Mass" the right way. They would not be ordained, until they had the words and gestures (rubrics) perfect. Two to three years later, I was learning to celebrate Eucharist all over again with some of the prayers being in English and with some flexibility in rubrics. Thank God for that. I would never, never, never want to go back to the Tridentine Latin Mass ever. I am embarrassed by the U.S. Bishops timidity in letting Rome take back what was rightfully the role of the world's conferences of Bishops. Most, I feel, are just "climbers" and will obediently consent to anything Rome sends out. After all, they want a more prestigious diocese or archdiocese and they know that acquiescence and a "good paper trail" to the Vatican will help them get promoted. One thing, though, I have never read yet in any article is this: The newer clergy, including some bishops, never experienced the Tridentine Latin Mass. Those of us who did experience it know what we gladly left behind. For us the Tridentine Mass is the "old Mass". For them the Tridentine Mass is the "New Mass." I think that's why it's appealing to them. They just don't know any better! So, again, God bless you in your endeavors and thank you for your courage in speaking up. I think you have spoken for many clergy and lay people across the USA.
Fr Denis E. Meier | Priest | Sioux Falls, SD | USA
 
I think the above statement is a little too strong. I almost did not sign it. What I have heard about the new Mass translations and a few of the examples I've seen are rather poor and stilted English. I believe that we can have translations from Latin that are excellent and beautiful English. I tend to think that the concern about the people accepting or not accepting the translations is a big overstated. It presumes that our Catholic people are stupid, frightened sheep. I do not like to see this thinking coming from "progressive" people in our church. Having said all this, I really do like the proposal to try the new translations in a limited number of parishes. So I have signed this.
Anonymous | Lay Minister | Rochester | USA
 
As a lay ecclesial minister working at the Diocesan level for twenty four years , I am saddened and even angry about how some of the great liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council are being reversed. Forty-five years ago my husband and I attended the Liturgical Conference in St. Louis where the first official English Mass was celebrated in the U.S.  We were Extension Lay Volunteers at the time and we were so elated to be active participants in the Mass. Two weeks before we had been married at a Latin Mass. The difference was due in part to the use of language that made sense to us and reflected what was in our minds. How important it is to respect the understandings of the People of God. Please wait on this proposal to see how the people respond.
Kathleen Heffern | Lay Minister | Buffalo, NY | USA
 
Pope Benedict has spoken and written about the transforming power of art and its ability to make the transcendent present. Since language elegantly crafted is itself a part of the beautiful which art reveals, a flawed, awkward and defective translation will make access to the divine all the more difficult, even impossible. In the deepest sense of the term, this is "an abomination unto the Lord."
Peter A. O'Reilly | Priest | Los Angeles, California | USA
 
The near unanimity of the Vatican II bishops is a remarkable sign of the Holy Spirit working through them when they adopted Sacrosanctum Concilium. How does a handful of curia people dare to thwart the Holy Spirit based on their individual narrow perceptions.
David J. paul, S.M. | Priest | St. Louis, MO | USA
 
Neither infallibility nor the papal or episcopal magisterium can make poor English good English.
Mario R. Claro | Priest | Wheeling-Charleston | United States of America
 
I'm embarrassed for our church that I have to sign this as anonymous.
Anonymous | Priest | New York | USA
 
Alleluia. Great approach, reasoned and gentle. I feel strongly regarding this issue as do so many of my peers and lay men and women. I had the privilege of participating in liturgy at the Seattle cathedral this past summer with the pastor as presider. It was one of the most prayerful and reverent celebrations of the Eucharist I have ever experienced. I know the author comes from a deep understanding of and reverence for the liturgy, a respect for the Church leadership and a deep respect for the People of God.
Rev. Daniel W. Murphy | Priest | Paterson | USA
 
This effort to undo the linguistic and cultural reforms of Vatican II can only be seen as the rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. With the exception of the immigrant communities here, our churches are largely filled with senior citizens. And it's easy to get the impression that the priests who are the "young fogies'' of whom Andrew Greeley wrote so eloquently are simply waiting for us progressives to die off so they can return to an exquisitely nuanced world of rubricism, debating on the proper angle with which to wear a biretta.
Anonymous | Lay Person | Oakland | USA
 
Merci, Gracias, thank you! I am grateful for your saying what so many of us feel, but do not have the proper channel to express those feelings. We love the liturgy--loved it Latin, only because it was what we knew then, but love it even more now that we can relate completely to it. It says what we think AS WE THINK, making our prayers more meaningful. I pray that you--we--may be listened to!
Sister Marie la Reine, IHM | Religious | Philadelphia,PA | USA
 
I am trying to get my kids to go to Mass regularly. The language is what pushes them away. Jesus spoke in plain language of the people not in Latin. If there is a new translation; lets make the prayers and our faith easier to understand.
Richard Altig | Lay Person | seattle | usa

We must speak our truth honestly, respectfully, clearly and with compassion. The author succeeds on all counts and I proudly add my name in support of a worthy cause. Please let's not shoot ourselves in the foot again!
Rev. David E. Cooper | Priest | Archdiocese of Milwaukee | USA
 
It frightens me to realize the loss of momentum we have seen since Vatican II. The excitement and energy of those days was heady indeed and promised hope for the many who were disenfranchised from the Church. The changes in the language of the Roman missal seem to be a giant step backwards. Yes, I say, "Wait." I'm not suggesting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but to proceed slowly, with great respect for the task at hand. I am very aware the Church is not a democracy, but it seems wise to consider the opinion of those whose religious experience will be affected.
Janice Mosley | Lay Minister | Richmond, VA | USA
 
Our church has taught us that "we become what we pray." If that is true -- and I believe it is -- then the current translations have the potential of doing a serious and long-lasting disservice to our Catholic people and our prayer life. I am a professional journalist/editor/translator and know the importance of language and expression, not only for prayer but for sheer credibility. I, like many others, simply discard poorly written materials, convinced that the writer either does not have a good command of the language or doesn't care. What a tragedy if that were to be our experience with the new translations! I have been fed and nourished for years on the beauty of our postconciliar liturgy -- and also savored it in other languages. This process, bypassing the liturgical authority of our bishops and suggesting that "sacredness" comes from a return to outdated linguistic styles, gives stones to our people when they are hungering for bread. The Italians have an old saying -- which seems especially true in the present liturgical translation debacle: Traduttore (e') traditore. The translator is a traitor. Something to think about. And yes, we need to say, "Wait," and while waiting, take the whole project back to the drawing board for native English-speakers and liturgical moderates, pastoral priests and bishops to assess, correct and revise until we have something US Catholics can pray with intelligently. Prayer , including and especially liturgical prayer, needs to transform us, not deform us!
Patricia Lynn Morrison | Lay Person | Cincinnati, Ohio | USA
 
Many, many thanks to Fr. Michael Ryan for expressing so well the sentiments of almost every priest I know and many of the laity. After 50 years of pastoral ministry my heart is saddened to see the promulgation of something so important that instead of lighting a fire within seems to invite the opposite reaction. I hope and pray the grass roots of the people we serve will respectfully be heard.
James D. Russell | Priest | Winona | USA
 
I have questioned a group of my fellow parishioners, most of whom I've known for over 30 years. I asked their reaction on the meaning of the following: ineffable - consubstantial - incarnate - inviolate - oblation - ignominy - precursor - suffused - unvanquished. These are all words we, the ordinary people who pay for the Vatican, will be expected to use in the new translation. Only one, a lecturer in English, no less, was able to give me understandable answers. The best the other friends could do is give the meaning of two of them. Most had received a reasonable and average education. I cheated, as I had looked up the meanings beforehand, so that I could see if a pastoral calamity was forthcoming. IT IS!
John Ryan | Lay Person | Salford, Manchester | England
 
As a former associate editor of WORSHIP magazine (1979-1991) and editor of THE COLLEGEVILLE HYMNAL (1990, Liturgical Press, St. John's Abbey, Collegeville MN) I am deeply concerned not simply with the difficulties of the Rome- imposed English translation but the loss of the musical versions of the Ordinary (including, unbelievably, the most popular memorial acclamation, "Christ has died...") that will leave the congregations song-less and the composers of the rich tradition of 40 years, without royalties, etc.
Rev. Edward J. McKenna | Priest | Chicago Archdiocese | USA
 
No pilot programme needs to be set up. South African Catholics had these Latinate-English texts force on them a year ago. Our experience should clearly indicate to Rome how totally unacceptable they are. If the Vatican had any sense (!) it would have approved ten years ago the revised English missal the former ICEL produced after pouring thirteen years into a superb job.
Fr Kevin Reynolds | Priest | Pretoria | South Africa
 
As a life-long Catholic, I am already struggling with the language of liturgy: power, glory, almighty, ruler, .... language that stresses dominance, control, and might rather than alluring humility and compassion of Christ. Would time spent on new translations be Christ's priority when so many in God's creation suffer from hunger, injustice, and oppression? I am hanging on to the Catholic Church by a thread - a Church I have cherished for many decades. The direction symbolized by the Roman Missal "effort" simply deepens my disappointment in its decision-making process.
Anonymous | Lay Person | Baltimore | USA
 
If they change the words in our prayer then it will be hard for me to understand the words because I am only 8. It is important for me to be part of the mass.
Andrew Lavrisha | Lay Person | Cleveland | United States
 
I grew up loving the Tridentine Mass, its glorious music, the mystery of the priest speaking Latin. As an altar boy, I excelled in learning our responses. As a student of Latin, Greek and History in high school and college, I deeply appreciated the symbolisms of the rituals. And I still appreciate those scattered opportunities to attend or observe a Mass in Latin, whether the current Mass or the Tridentine Mass. HOWEVER, what attracts me to regular participation in the Eucharist is the deep conviction that the entire community is celebrating the Pascal mystery, Christ's death and resurrection and the continuing living presence of the risen Christ in our midst today. Our common language should underscore and heighten that awareness. To deepen the reality of that Eucharistic community , the language should flow and lift, not confuse and cause us to wonder what is being said. As an outsider, I have followed the public elements of the debate on revising the English translation of the missal for several years. From what I understand, the current version will be an obstacle to my reverent participation in the Eucharistic celebration. I believe that the entire people of God should go slowly; a period of trial and evaluation seems necessary. Thank you. In Christ's peace, I pray.
Jerome J Bosken, PhD | Lay Minister | Washington, DC | USA
 
If I am to mean what I say then I need to say what what I mean. Can I pray that the cup is "for many" when I mean it was for all.
Diarmuid Casey C.S.Sp | Priest | San Francisco | U.S.
 
I am the director of music of a large suburban parish and I heartily endorse a lay review of the revisions of the Mass. I am a convert, and when I began attending mass in the 1980s, I was struck by how easy it was to understand the language. No fake "thees" and "thous", just plain, easy to understand English. That should be the standard for liturgical translations. People who don't speak English shouldn't really have anything to say about our translations, and the attempt to combine English words with Latin grammar is not a movement of the Holy Spirit, but an action of Vatican politics.
Robert Waldrop | Lay Minister | Archdiocese of OKlahoma City | USA
 
ordained '62; witnessed the dismantling of Vatican II Didn't that used to be heresy?
Brian Rafferty | Priest | Baltimore | USA
 
Both as the holder of a Ph.D. in Liturgical Studies from the Catholic University of America and as the current Pastor of a parish, I have grave concerns about the implementation of the translation as it stands...
Daniel M. Ruff, S.J. | Priest | Philadelphia | USA
 
Thank you, Fr. Ryan! I have just read your article in America magazine. I agree with everything you have said and I appreciate this website to show my support. Women in our Church have little or no voice and this comment gives me a chance to hope that I have a voice some place. During this season of "waiting" how appropriate it is to "wait" with moving forward with something so important as the words with which we worship and declare our faith. Count me as another voice in "waiting." After all, I am still waiting to be a FULL member of the Catholic Church, but I have faith that someday all will be equal "on earth as we are in heaven."
Reina Perea | Religious | Los Angeles, California | USA
 
It would be good to have the translations done by people for whom English is their native tongue! I am in favor of restoring, or at least publishing, the wonderful translations that ICEL spent so many years of loving labor and excellent scholarship composing. Rome just trashed their work, and this travesty is what they offer us instead!
Arden R. Martos | Lay Person | Louisville, KY | U. S. A.
 
I am, like Fr. Ryan, a child of Vatican II. But for many years now, I have lamented the eroding of the principles of this great Council. I find myself increasingly looking to small faith communities that are not capitulating to Rome's determination to erode the beauty of our iturgies and Latinize through awkward, convoluted and offensive language all that Vatican II worked to change. I will never give up my birthright as a baptized Catholic, but I won't support through my presence a liturgy that makes me angry, upset and despondent about the path Rome has chosen for us.
Linda G Gerstle | Lay Person | Wilmington DE | USA
 
This well thought out initiative by a very seasoned and respected pastor is an excellent exercise of the kind of co-responsibility in the Church and for the Church that the Council was trying to foster. Both those who preside at liturgy and those who pray with them will be negatively affected by the pointless mangling of the English language involved in this "new" (anachronistic, gratuitously unintelligible, and in many cases silly) translation. Who, exactly, thinks this alienating "reform" is a good idea? It does not seem to be priests, bishops, or the praying community. If people find the liturgy an exercise in fastidious irrelevance they will simply go elsewhere to worship. Ex-Catholics are the second largest "denomination" in the United States. Do we want it to continue to grow? I support this initiative whole-heartedly.
Sandra Schneiders, IHM | Religious | Oakland, CA | USA
 
As the grand nephew of Archbishop Edwin V. O'Hara, one of the great champions of liturgical renewal in this country even before Vatican II and the patron of the CCD translations of the Bible, I respectfully ask the U.S. bishops to pause and reflect with their congregations and not rush headlong into implementation of these new translations. I would especially ask New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, whose biography of my great uncle wonderfully portrayed O'Hara's leadership in these areas and sense of what it means to be a shepherd, to take the lead in delaying these translations.
James A. O'Hara III | Lay Person | Washington | USA
 
The Mass is the primary, daily locus of the faithful's encounter with Christ. It must be accessible to us all, and "accessible" does not by any stretch of the imagination mean "dumbed down." Some of the Church's most powerful prayers--the Our Father, the Glory Be, the Hail Mary, the Magnificat--are utterly simple in their English translations, but eminently profound. A great number of the new translations in the proposed missal are neither. In English-speaking churches, where we already struggle to attract and retain spiritually hungry people in a world with many counter-tendencies, the last thing we should do is give people a reason to feel the Mass is not a place for them to encounter Christ. To ignore our duty in this regard verges on sinful, and to the extent that the battles that have preceded and that lurk beneath the translation movement are that--battles, not a process of careful discernment of the Holy Spirit speaking to our Church today--it is a quite serious sin indeed.
Kurt M. Denk, S.J. | Priest | Oakland | United States
 
As it is, since 1965, we have been stuck in Vatican version 1.5 liturgy rather than Vatican 2.0. In recent years we have been slowly moving backward in time. Part of this is the historical trend of pendulum swing to be sure but this does not diminish the serious impact of the new translation on the prayer life of a generation of Catholics who have never known the Tridentine mass. Are the current translations lacking and wanting - yes. Should we implement an incomplete and hurried translation for sake of expediency - no! I am afraid this is one more area where Cardinal Avery Dulles was correct in predicting that the Dallas Charter would set the stage for bishops and priests to become adversaries. If the Church leadership were to trust her priests and and lay members more, if they were to consult rather than dictate we might not be at the point we now are. For my part I wish we could get beyond the liturgy and culture wars and focus on the problems people of faith are dealing with in the ever changing, increasingly violent world. The last thing we need is to change the one thing which grounds peoples lives.
Andrew Lawrence | Priest | Archdiocese for Military Services USA | USA
 
A church with such rich history in tradition should not have to reinvent itself every 45 years. These new "translations" have stirred up a great deal of emotion and, in my view, theological confusion among lay people. Any changes should be made with the utmost respect to the existing culture of the church, and in detailed consultation with the church leaders, at a minimum. Some consultation with the lay people of the church would also help the church leaders to gage the effects of this potentially divisive decision.
Anonymous | Lay Person | Austin | USA
 
I am concerned that a reactionary element in the Church is trying to negate all the advantages of Vatican II. Recently Cardinal Napier said "change should be accepted with respect". The answer is that change should be introduced with respect too - not imposed on a whim. We need to move with the times in many respects.
Denise Gordon-Brown | Lay Person | Johannesburg | South Africa
 
The introduction of the translations into the parishes in South Africa was premature. I have visited several different places in the country for Mass over the past few months and have discovered some communities using the new translations, others not. I no longer know how to respond at Mass and so I remain silent. What kind of public worship, meant to build community, is this? I concur that we should wait. Rather that it should be scrapped. I just attended a workshop which introduced the Our Father from Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The translations were indeed beautiful and the spirit of Jesus was much better portrayed than Greek or Latin language ever could. Why don't we go back to the source? The language/translation of Jesus?
Elizabeth Martiny | Lay Person | Johannesburg | South Africa
 
The introduction of the new translation in SA has left me frustrated and distracted at Holy Mass. I can see no justification for this change to our existing and loved vernacular liturgy.
Alan Foster | Lay Person | Cape Town | South Africa
 
We had this translation imposed on us (with no preparation) one year ago in South Africa. The objections it raised were unprecedented. The editor of the one weekly Catholic paper in the country received 'an avalanche' of letters in protest, and the criticisms continued in 40 of 52 issues throughout the year. The attempts by the bishops to justify the translations convinced few if any. As yet we have only had to deal with the 'people's parts', but many priests are dreading the time when the Eucharistic prayers will also be 'required'. If anything can be done to prevent this becoming the 'law of the land' it should be done, not only in the interests of our common worship, but also because of the ecclesiological implications. The tragedy is that the work of re-translation had already been done by the 'Real' ICEL in 1999. A local priest/liturgist writing of this most unfortunate history said, 'Cinderella has been put in the closet, and we are being made to dance with the ugly stepsisters'. Given the 'music' of this translation, however, even dancing will be difficult.
Judith Coyle | Religious | Johannesburg | South Africa
 
The speed at which the reforms of Vatican II are being rolled back is becoming a matter of grave concern. Those of us old enough to remember the pre-Vatican II liturgy have no interest in seeing those days return. As your article points out, we have enough critical issues to deal with. Whether we say "with you" or "with your spirit" is not one of them and will only serve to alienate an educated laity unnecessarily as it accomplishes exactly nothing.
Virginia Smith | Lay Person | Great Falls-Billings | United States
 
It is very unsettling to see the deliberations of Vatican II (which I believe were the tangible work of the Holy Spirit) being treated as never having happened. From day one of the Council some resisted the outcomes and this "tradition" continues to the present day (obviously). Being trained in logic and educated in faith by the same Church, I am at a loss to understand what is going on and why it is happening.
MAYHEW Brian Arthur | Lay Person | Brisbane | Australia
 
I wholeheartedly support a period of waiting and more reflection on this issue. As a life-long Catholic who grew up with the Latin mass (I'm 54) and now participate in the Church's current liturgy on a very regular basis, nothing could alienate me more than these proposed changes. God wants to be so close and present to His people in word and Sacrament.... God chose simplicity - so evident in our faith this time of year at Christmas, choosing to be born in a manger. Why would we ever want to make it more complicated to hear God's voice by adopting these new responses and text?
Patricia Heffernan | Lay Person | Seattle | USA
 
I am 71 years old. I have children and grandchildren. I was brought up in a family of great faith with a vital spiritual life. I had the privilege of being educated by the Sisters of Mercy. The faith of my grandparents, parents and myself and our extended family was and is rock solid. I cannot claim that for the next generations. The Church can continue to act in an irresponsible way and I will hang on------but it will greatly disappoint and sadden me. I do not believe the next generations will hang on. They will continue to have faith but find a more welcoming place to practice their faith. The language itself is an issue but the greater issue is the rush to leave Vatican II behind. The clergy must speak out, men must speak out and women must SHOUT out. Pat Kellogg
Patricia Kellogg | Lay Person | Burlington | USA
 
I'm so sick of top down changes. I am so sick of the people who want to dismantle Vatican II. I'm not going back to the 1940s ,50s Church. Period.
Natalie Cornell | Lay Person | Diocese of St. Augustine in Florida | USA
 
This wonderful grass root project has my prayers. I believe it is a sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit. May it reach the hearts of those who are our bishops - our shepherd leaders and may it give them courage to once again speak up and speak out.
Rosanna Gleason | Religious | Dubuque, IA | USA
 
Walker Percy, the late novelist and linguistic philosopher, called attention to the degradation of language in everyday lives. He was himself a master stylist, and part of the message he conveys in his novels is inescapably the language itself. We believe that the words matter, and the translations promulgated in the new missal seem to negate this central truth.
Edward J. Dupuy | Lay Minister | Savannah, GA | UGA
 
Leave things as they are. Why do our people need to go through another turmoil in their church life. Stop! Pause! take a deep breath
Anonymous | Priest | Seattle | U,S. A.
 
Words matter. What we say matters. Certainly the words used in the central prayer of the Church matter. They should be words the people in the pews can relate to. They should be words that touch our hearts and minds, not words that repel, confuse or enrage. Our bishops should stand shoulder to shoulder with their flock on this issue.
John Zimnie | Lay Person | Joliet | USA
 
I hardly know where to begin. Let us avoid secular terms like "liberal" and ""conservative". I suspect the Vatican has a genuine fear of the way of being church that arose through the overwhelming majority of Bishops at Vatican II. As Catholic Christians we must do all we can to convince the leaders of our church that decisions and policy (yes it is policy; our politics are an alternative politics because devoted to the Kingdom of God but still a politics) based on fear are not just mistaken but a failure of the confidence born of the faith of Pentecost.
GJ Harrison | Lay Person | Youngstown,Ohio | USA
 
I was ordained in 1955, studied in Rome in1959-60 and was the chair of a team to implement Vatican II in our diocese. II taught the documents for ten years following the Council. I am disconcerted, discouraged and appalled at the success of the forces of retrenchment. It seems to me to be Alexandria and Antioch all over again with what amounts to an overemphasis on the divinity of Jesus to almost a denial of his humanity. I am still pastoring two small parishes at 80 but I am seriously considering retiring if this pastiche liturgy is promulgated.
Rev. Peter R. Riani | Priest | Ogdensburg,NY | USA
 
The proposed translation is already causing divisions. It violates Christ's prayer for unity. Very few, if any proponents, have prayed it as it would be prayed by The People of God. Don't you realize that people are leaving the Church for reasons such as these? English speaking People of God know the English language and recognize the flaws of the proposed translation. Again, our credibility is being undercut for some unknown reason.
Fr. Roger Schmit, O.S.B. | Priest | Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas | United States
 
As Secretary of the Southwark Liturgy Commission at the time of the introduction of the current Missal, I spent a large part of my life preparing priests and people for the then new Missal. That Missal was prepared in accordance with the instructions of the Vatican that it should not be a transliteration but in a language which could easily be proclaimed and understood. From what I have seen of the 'new' Missal, the translation is not a real translation; the English is poor; it will be difficult to proclaim and will not be easily understood. I am also concerned at the effect on the many people for whom English is a second language; and on the effects on the ecumenical movement - no longer will we have prayers in common.
Anonymous | Deacon | Southwark | England
 
I have been a priest for 35 years and a pastor for 25 of those years. I have tried to be as loyal a priest as possible. However, I am very concerned that these translations, especially changing the assembly's responses, will not be well received no matter what machinations we go through. I have no problem with the Church determining what will be in the Liturgy and what will not. My concern is that implementing these changes now will show the faithful that "playing Church" is more important than "being Church."
Vincent J. Scott | Priest | Oakland | USA
 
The people of our parishes know this is coming. We worship and music directors, in coordination with our pastors, have made it a point to inform people of the coming changes as we have discovered them. And as yet, I haven't heard one positive comment. However, I consistently hear how unnecessary and pointless these liturgical changes are and how out of touch the Bishops and Rome truly have to be. But what stings the most is to hear people talk about how the Bishops have lost ALL moral credibility and leadership and are messing with the one area where they can still exert authority - our prayer lives.
Christopher Camp | Lay Minister | Louisville | United States
 
I heartily concur with Fr. Ryan and applaud his courage in making such a proposal. Vatican II called adults in the church to be adults in our faith life while our bishops seem to believe we need to be spoon fed to converse with our God. We have time to wait, to consult, to listen and to collaborate, God has tended to be patient with us.
Paul Purcell | Lay Person | Seattle | USA
 
I was ordained before Vatican II. It was a joy assisting the faithful take their rightful part in the Liturgy following that Council. I see no pastoral justification for disrupting the prayer life of the faithful by introducing an entirely new translation. Minor revisions of a word or two might be in order. ("Holy Ghost" was changed to "Holy Spirit" some thirty or forty years ago because of the connotation "Ghost" had in modern usage.) The wholesale revision of the texts after only forty years is another matter. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies also to translations. The Sacramentary was approved by the Vatican forty years ago. It "ain't broke." We speak the same English now as we did then. It is truly regrettable that a new translation was undertaken without first having conducted a very broad consultation at the grassroots level.
William E. Elliott | Priest | San Diego | USA
 
Thanx for giving words to what many feel!
Paul R. Vassar | Priest | Oakland | USA
 
The turnaround from VCII is unconscionable and unrelated to the needs of our dwindling Catholic population (in the USA). "Rome" exercises a power and control over most local bishops that is astounding, given the history of the Church. Priests are corralled into mindless obedience, often simply denying our humanness and disallowing any stepping outside the box, as John the Baptist did, and certainly Jesus after him. Today it is the preservation of the institution that rules all decisions of the church's authorities. Many of us older priests look upon the seeming future with a sigh of relief that perhaps God will take us home before either we opt out or the church authorities decide to opt us out because we are different, and dare to think, in and outside the box. Thank you.
Joe O'Donnell, CSC | Priest | Phoenix | USA
 
Do we have any hope?
James S. Russell | Lay Person | New Hampshire | USA
 
I am delighted that Fr. Michael Ryan gave me this way to positively express my outrage at these proposed changes approved by our US Bishops. His article so clearly addresses my concerns about the quality of these translations and their lack of proper English let alone polished, prayerful expression. I hope many other priests, bishops, and deacons as well as lay ministers will join in this effort to avert the present planned for introduction of these texts in all the English speaking counties of our rite. The idea of testing them at specifically chosen sites for a year is an appropriate way to elicit the sensum fidelium.
Fr. Keith R. Brennan,S.D.S. | Priest | Tucson | USA
 
How appropriate that during this liturgical season of hopeful waiting, we suggest the wisdom of waiting and preparing in this area of liturgical life. The recently adopted changes in vocabulary and sentence structure impress me as "foreign" and somewhat artificial. If changes are to be made, then the manner of expressing those decided as necessary can surely be improved upon. Please add my voice to those who are asking that we just wait.
Lucille Dean, SP | Religious | Seattle | USA
 
This is a "must." The translations are horrific and in no way enhance the celebration of Liturgy. Lay people who have seen some of the translations are bewildered by the lack of proper English grammar and the archaic words being used in an effort to present a literal translation of the Latin. Our Bishops need to send a delegation to the Vatican and voice their concerns as to how these translations will in no way help our people celebrate an intelligible Liturgy, especially our younger generation. Many thanks for your efforts!
Rev. George M. Rebatzki | Priest | Milwaukee | USA
 
Were one of my Latin students at the university to submit a translation similar to that which the Church is about to impose on us, I would acknowledge its accuracy but point out its lack of idiom and clarity. The Church is apparently seeking a translation that is so close to the Latin original as to preclude any misinterpretation of the doctrinal content. What they misunderstand is that any translation is an interpretation; you cannot avoid interpreting when you decide which English word best reflects the meaning of the Latin text. This translation is therefore no less an interpretation than the one we currently employ. And when the translation obscures rather than elucidates the text, it simply fails its purpose. Accuracy obviously matters, but clarity is a close second. And the new texts simply do not measure up in that regard. That's my oblation!!???
David W. Madsen | Lay Minister | Seattle | USA
 
Father Ryan is preaching prudence and that is a virtue.
sandra reynolds | Lay Person | Spokane | USA
 
It is too bad that some of the promoters of these changes don't have the same concern about the real needs in the church. THE HUNGRY, -- THE HOMELESS -- MEDICAL CARE, -- THE FAITHFUL IN THE PEWS. I totally agree with Fr. Mike Ryan. What is wrong with the changes that came out of Vatican II.
George Peterson | Deacon | Seattle | usa
 
From the bottom of my heart I sincerely thank you for your vision, sensitivity, courage and care for the faithful in the pews. Language is so beautiful and powerful. May we always use it to bring us closer and closer to the sacred in a meaningful manner. You and you project will be in my prayers.
Mary Grace McGuire-Kelley | Lay Person | Syracuse,NY | USA
 
Transliterating good Latin to bad English results in a bad translation that would get a low grade from any foreign language teacher. Why should we have to suffer this degradation of our most significant form of prayer because of a small group that idolizes Latin? As for developing a "sacred language" including technical scholarly terms incomprehensible to most Catholics, I would point out that someone is confusing obfuscation with holiness. Liturgy is the work of the people, not the plaything of ideologues. If the new translations require catechesis to be comprehensible to the adults, let alone the children in the pews, they should be sent back to the drawing board.
Velma McLelland | Lay Person | Shreveport | USA
 
It is beyond the time to speak up as Church for what makes sense in the translations of liturgical texts. If it's English, let those who are experts in English do it.
Fr. Charles C Brown | Priest | Santa Fe | United States
 
Preparing the people for these changes will be one of the most difficult things I will have to do in my 45 years of priesthood because I do not see any reason for making the changes. How can I sell a product that I don't believe in? Being a product of Vatican II, I believe that the bishops have given up their collegial role or that perhaps those recently ordained bishops never accepted this role in the first place. Hopefully our people will rise up in protest for what are foolish changes, but I doubt it. Most will probably go along with the changes because they are told "That's the way it is."
Dave Riley | Priest | Bridgeport | U.S.A.
 
Making the liturgical text less understood by the people is a definitive and disastrous step backward, and does nothing to strengthen the gospel message and commission. It is high time for the hierarchy to begin focusing on issues in true need of reform.
James E Barrett | Lay Minister | Denver | USA
 
It is time for our bishops to to stand up to Rome.
Rev Msgr Vincent Haselhorst | Priest | Belleville | USA
 
I agree wholeheartedly! Those who are trying to undo all of the work of the Spirit at Vatican II feel that it is possible to legislate reverence. I am old enough to remember both forms of the liturgy; the present books, though not perfect, allow the Lord's presence to invite rather than coerce belief and reverence. The bishops themselves continually make reference to the education and experience of the People of God, but do not seem to feel that the same people, of which we are all a part, have enough brains or grace to pray. Cultic priesthood serves the baptismal priesthood of us all. All should have a chance to speak.
John Doc Ortman | Priest | Archdiocese of Detroit | USA
 
The Church sins when someone with 40 years of conscientious, well-formed, heartfelt, gracious service in ministry has to sign anonymously, for fear of compromising my spouse's Church job. Truly, even "pilot program" does not suffice. Many signatories prefer that we scrap the translations entirely, and dig our heels in for dynamic equivalency. Thanks, Father, for your courage in speaking up. Mother Church silences the rest of us, and it's just plain bullying.
Anonymous | Lay Minister | Pittsburgh | PA
 
Dear Sir/Madame The article was written partially in the hopes that perhaps the Bishops would listen. When have the Bishops ever listened? They do not even listen to each other-never mind to me-a lay person. The Bishops and the Vatican are more concerned with the exertion of power than they are about the prayer life of the people in the Eucharist. The hierarchy would like to keep the laity in the pray, pay and obey mentality; they want no questions and no thinking. It is tragic. I know the Spirit is alive in our beloved Church but I wonder if anyone in charge is listening. I am cradle Catholic who loves this Church and I have no intention of leaving it-as many have done-but I fear for its credibility and its direction. As any student of Church history knows, it is replete with "misdirection" and error. Ignorance of history means you are doomed to repeat it. God help us all. May God bless the courage of those who speak out!
Anne Kerrigan | Lay Person | Rockville Centre, New York | USA
 
After visiting usccb.org/romanmissal, I wrote a letter expressing my disappointment to the diocesan paper. They did not print it but sent it on to Arthur Seratelli. He wrote back that my comments had been addressed but this was an international effort. I responded to him that I had been to Mass at several places around the world and had not noticed any such language there. He did not respond.
James M. Molloy | Lay Minister | Paterson | USA
 
Much of this translation simply is not an improvement over what we have been using for the last decades. I have shown some of the prayers to my high school students. Most were perplexed. One of the comments was that his freshman English teacher would never let him get away with some of the grammar and syntax; he would have been sent home to rewrite the prayer. Another student just looked at the prayer, perplexed, and asked, "What does this mean?" If we are going to have to teach people how to understand their own language, are we really promoting full, active and intelligent participation in the liturgy? As the translation now stands, if implemented, priests will have little choice but to altar the text to make its proclamation intelligible and some priests are better at this than others. We need texts that are usable right from the box.
Ian Dommer, osb | Priest | St. Cloud | USA
 
My full, conscious and active participation in the liturgy will be hampered by language that does not speak to me and other people in the pews. What is wrong with the current language? Any tweaking should be done by those most closely involved, i.e., native speakers. Have other languages faced the same problems? Are English-speaking peoples paying a price for some unknown reason?
Christine Laing | Lay Minister | Detroit | USA
 
I have read your article and concerns. I wonder if most priests know about the translation. I doubt that lay people--- who form most of catholic church know that this is taking place. I pray for a situation where we will be allowed to sample with our communities what the liturgists (translators) are working out before it is promulgated as the way for our prayer life. As rural as we might be the faith is alive and we love our church... and want to be part of such a major shift instead of just getting the end result because it affects for now what we have always known as the way for our liturgy... prayer life. Some of us were born in the 70s and this all we know other than the past that we read in books. The church I minister to is three quarters a church of the 70s. The church (Catholicism) here was only brought in 1936 by the Irish capuchins! Even the present liturgical rite, we are still finding it difficult to translate it in the languages of the local people. Worse of all its still a lot of work to help them follow the present liturgy. I wonder how the translation in the local language will sound like... coz what is already in the English version and in use is finding it difficult to be translated in local languages. Wait!
Kennedy Sampa | Priest | Mongu, Zambia | Zambia
 
Hooray for you. May you succeed where dear Bishop Trautman failed. But then, you are appealing to fellow intelligent Catholics, not to spineless Roman yes-men.
Fred Hofheinz | Lay Person | Indianapolis | USA
 
What a joy to read Fr Ryan's article and to hear that there are still some people left who, though born into the pre Conciliar Church, embraced the vision and spirit of the Council with joy and great hope. Those of us who are priests now face retirement with a sense of betrayal and disappointment. These translations undo much of the slow patient work that parish priests have invested in parish liturgy over a lifetime, not just through the words they use, but through the changed ecclesiology which they reveal.
Michael Griffin | Priest | East Anglia | England
 
Dear readers, I would like to thank Michael G Ryan for his brave remarks about the expected translations. Quite a lot of people in the English speaking world are concerned about the difficulty of the new phrases. I believe that before such texts are approved, experts on language, representing all God's people within and outside the church first agree that the language used is both understandable and intelligent. Let us not find another reason to drive away the few people who still--against all odds join parishes for Mass. In consulting, it is imperative to seek the views of the youth. They, might be still young, but they have with them certain instincts of how they wish to worship and bring Christ to the world of tomorrow and after. So, it seems right indeed to wait, to be alert, to watch, to listen and to converse. The Holy Spirit might whisper a couple of things to us. Happy Christmas.
Aloysius Beebwa | Priest | Society of the Missionaries of Africa | Belgium
 
As one who has been ordained over 26 years and worked tirelessly to promote good liturgy and good liturgical practice in all the parishes in which I have served, I have both seen and used experimentally (unofficially) the texts for the New Missal in my own parish, especially the Eucharistic prayers, I have very grave misgivings as to these new translations. I many respects they display poor English and on occasions come across as meaningless. We have been let down by our bishops who have just acquiesced to Rome's wishes without a fight. I urge the bishops of the English speaking world to think again.
JAMES ANTHONY GRANT | Priest | MOTHERWELL | SCOTLAND
 
Seems we are returning to a dualist ('and with your spirit' - what happened to the Incarnation?), baroque and prissy way of praying and responding to the all-embracing and ever generous God-with-us. Where can we seek an indult to continue celebrating the Eucharist in its present form?
Anonymous | Religious | St Andrews & Edinburgh | Scotland
 
There needs to be serious thought, prayer and wide consultation if the English translation that we have been using for years is to be altered. I am interested that the English translation of the Nicene Creed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is according to what we have been using in the past. There is even an explanation as to why we say "We believe" in the Nicene Creed and why we say "I believe" in the Apostles' Creed.
Bernadette Chellew | Lay Person | Johannesburg | South Africa
 
I hope this petition spreads across the English speaking world.
Angela Thomas | Lay Person | Newcastle / Maitland | Australia
 
These are strange times in which we live. There is so much confusion , uncertainty, unemployment and war. People are angry about government and people in authority not listening to them and helping their plight. We see greed running rampant. The church is our safe harbor. It is a place our prayers and the mass calm all our fears. The church should be careful about the changes it plans to institute. I hope our church puts its people first and not add to their stress.
Joan Ervin | Lay Person | Seattle | United States
 
I don't know very much about this issue, but I have looked a bit at the website that prepares people for the new translations. Some are rather poetic, but many are just head-scratchingly awful. If we are to believe the Gospels, Jesus spoke using clear words and phrases in the common language of the people of that time and place. He didn't speak in Latin, and he didn't try to mold his language so that it would sound more like Latin than vernacular. Surely what Jesus did and said should always be the model for any church calling itself Christian. And, for heaven's sake, when we're all still reeling from seemingly endless revelations of clerical sexual abuse and cover-ups by the hierarchy around the world, there are plenty of other efforts where church leaders could more profitably employ reformist aspirations!
Julia Petipas | Lay Person | Boston | USA
 
There are numerous microinequities and gross macroinequities in the process that has lead to this poor translation.
Anonymous | Priest | None | US
 
Dear Father Michael, If you are the Michael Ryan of my days at St. Thomas Seminary, in Bothell, WA, greetings. Thanks for taking this step. The perhaps well-meaning people in Rome who are behind all this show no respect for an Ecumenical Council. Why should we respect them? By this calculated partisan act, they are diminishing the authority of the Church.
William Taylor | Priest | Boise | United States
 
I could not agree more with your remarks about the new Roman Missal. Sixty years an obedient Priest I find myself on the edge of revolt. I too fought the good fight to implement Vatican II. Was not the voice of 3000 Bishops the voice of the Holy Spirit As pastors where is our loyalty, the Bishop/Rome or the people to whom we also owe loyalty? Come Holy Spirit..soon.
Leo Francis Donnelly | Priest | Lismore | Australia
 
Currently I am reading Fr. John O'Malley's excellent history entitled "What Happened At Vatican II". To now change direction after such overwhelming approval by the largest Council ever assembled by the church (and after four years of discussions) can only create confusion and discord. Rome needs to listen to the people of the church. We should seek pathways to peace...not sow the seeds of destruction.
Mary A. Jolley | Lay Person | Birmingham, Alabama | United States
 
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this issue. After seeing several texts of the new translation, it is with deep sadness that I watch this change being forced upon us. I am not sure what upsets me more--the new translation itself or the way this has been handled. Hopefully this initiative will broaden the discussion so that we can truly reflect as a community about our worship.
Timothy S. Godfrey, S.J. | Priest | Washington, DC | USA
 
I have become accustomed to hearing "I'm not leaving the Church; the Church is leaving me"--but I came within a hair recently of saying, "If I am a Catholic when I die" during a discussion of the new translations, what appears to be the dismantling of Vatican II, and the bowing and scraping and incense which seem to be increasing needlessly. Do the Bishops ever deliberate about pastoral concerns? About faith? In spite of past dissatisfactions and feeling that women are second class Catholics, I never considered leaving the Church. I used to insist that one great thing about the Catholic Church was that there was room for all kinds--I'm no longer sure of that.
P.A. O'Day | Lay Minister | Belleville | United States
 
Although I am a Byzantine Catholic I do attend Mass frequently in the Lansing diocese and do not approve of the changes in the new Roman missal. Some of the language is elitist.
Andrew Kato | Lay Person | Eparchy of Parma | United States
 
Talk about rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic! The Vatican is punching holes in the lifeboats!
Joseph N. Sestito | Priest | Ogdensburg | USA
 
Father Ryan said he is 'troubled' when he realizes that it's 'almost exclusively the overburdened pastors of this country who will be saddled with the task of getting people to understand why they are getting new translations and why the translations will be better than what they're used to.'  The truth is that there is a pattern. When it appears that a Pontiff is drawing to the end of their Papacy, those involved in Commissions such as Liturgy swing into action providing such things as new translations, new directives. This is an effort to validate their roles to an incoming Pontiff. Why are we getting new translations? So they won't get pink slips. Sad isn't it. This is the "Year of the Priest", the year that Father Damien of Molokai was canonized for his example of fidelity to the ideals of Priesthood, and this is the year that Rome takes over the pastoral role of the US Conference of Bishops and hands out what those knowledgeable in Liturgy and Vatican II and the English language admit is a translation in substandard English and lacking a pastoral focus. How inspiring...
Mary Sweeney | Lay Person | Boston | United States
 
I pray, in simple English, that our bishops will listen to the Holy Spirit on this matter, who is surely speaking through the People of God, whom the Bishops serve.
Thomas V. Wittman | Lay Person | Denver | USA
 
I am deeply grateful to Father Ryan for his stand. I have spent my entire religious life (62 years vowed) implementing Vatican II in the field of church music. It is heart breaking to see the unraveling of all the Church I love has achieved in bringing the wonder of Vatican II to full reality. I pray much for the Church during these sad days.
Anonymous | Religious | Portland, OR | USA
 
I definitely agree with Father Michael G Ryan and his approach to the proposed Missal. In our Archdiocese there have been some "Presentations" about the new translations but little or no opportunity for comments, suggestions, or questions. The presentation was "this is it, get ready". Being retired I will not have the hassle of trying to convince parishioners that it is "okay". This, along with some young priests being ready to "go back to 1950". Ugh, they never knew what it was like.
John C. Paisley | Priest | Dubuque | U.S.A.
 
This entire process has been a betrayal of Vatican II. The real effort at bringing about Active Participation in the Liturgy has hardly begun.
Fr Timothy J Joyce | Religious | Boston | USA
 
Please explain the pastoral advantage of a translation which is closer and more faithful to the Latin. Was the Latin version inspired? I love Latin, studied it for seven years. Latin is primarily an inflectional language. English is primarily a word order language. Being faithful (actually, slavish) to the Latin produces a linguistic wreck in English. Yes, let us say, "WAIT!" Or the answer I personally choose, "NO!"
Jim Auer | Lay Person | Cincinnati | Ohio
 
I am privileged to be a parishioner at St. James Cathedral. After many years away from the Church, I returned, in large part, because of the beauty and accessibility of the liturgy, which brought me closer to God. I applaud his call for a waiting period, as wise, loving, intelligent and worshipful minds consider the wisdom of the proposed new language
Joyce Mork-O'Brien | Lay Person | Seattle | United States
 
I concur with Bishop Trautman in his assessment of the deficiencies in these translations. I am pleasantly shocked that we are organizing opposition to this uninformed, knee-jerk response by a majority of our U. S. bishops to Rome's request for approval of prayers which we will be asked to say but have no voice in approving. May this be a harbinger of things to come!
Michael A. Marini | Priest | Monterey | USA
 
Sharing forms of English expression with our Anglican and Episcopal brothers and sisters, as we do now, is a great boost to ecumenism. Removing our commonality of expression in areas like "The Lord be with you" "And also with you." is very unwise.
Thomas Heck | Lay Minister | Los Angeles | United States
 
Thank you, Michael, for your insightful and courageous reflections. Your excellent reputation as a priest and pastor, even here on the East coast, lend great credibility to your articulate statement. Since the Vatican seemed to easily grant permission for the usage of the Tridentine Rite, perhaps our bishops could request that our current translation be maintained for the benefit of God's People in the U.S.A. Blessed Advent!
Rev. Thomas P. Ivory S.T.D. | Priest | Newark, N.J. | U.S.A.
 
Please permit us to pray as we speak.
John Durkin | Lay Person | Arlington, Virginia | USA
 
1. I am not especially skilled in Latin, but I read English very well. The Sacramentary in use is basically sound. All that I have seen of the revised texts degrades rather than enhances the spoken word. 2. The Eucharistic Prayers for Reconciliation are not good, i.e., the language lacks a dignified simplicity. Do they translate the editio typica according to the norms of Liturgicam authenticam? How can these prayers be so bad and the EP's for special occasions so good? 3. The translation of the revised lectionary is terrible. How we did this to ourselves I will never understand. For the sake of a few insignificant accommodations of inclusive language, we accepted a translation that is clumsy to proclaim and makes Paul impossible to understand. 4. I see a certain small benefit in changes to the dialogue parts of the Mass. Everybody will have a cue card in hand, and maybe a few of those who have been non-participative will enter the dialogue. However, the MANY who know and pray their parts should not have meaningless verbiage inflicted upon them. This is especially the case for the service music. How nonsensical to change these texts. I believe the result of the new missal will be decreased participation by the laity. The language to which they have been accustomed, and which supposedly is theologically sound is changed. To what end? To anger and annoy them? 5. Publishers should be put on notice of widespread discontent, and refuse to publish until there is a consensus that parishes will purchase revised editions. Unfortunately, at least one publisher is bound to break ranks, forcing the others to follow. I may have more comments if I have time to do more study. The only unity I have found concerning the revision of the Roman Missal is unanimity concerning its defects.
Mark F. Pautler | Priest | Spokane | USA
 
I am quite concerned about the new translations of the Roman Missal. Not only do the translations concern me--which I see to be more literal than meaningful--rather, it is the way in which the entire process has been handled. I am bewildered and ask myself : why we are spending so much time on something that most probably will be experienced as disruptive and divisive? (e.g. South Africa and their implementation of these translations). Why risk the loss of more credibility as a Church? I am a pastor who is concerned with the growing numbers who no longer belong to the Church. And what keeps them away has little or nothing to do with the language of the liturgy. It has more to do with issues and concerns that the official church is unwilling to address. I love the Church and my Catholicism too much to sit back and say nothing. I do believe to implement these new translations as they stand would be disastrous. It would be a mistake. Frankly, connected to these translations is an agenda that is misguided and not the work of grace. Thank you for listening. Father Tim Clark
Timothy Clark | Priest | Seattle | USA
 
It seems ironic and almost devious that at a time when a huge campaign is underway to return Catholics to their faith, Catholics Come Home, that "home" will be changed into something unrecognizable and awkward instead of remaining familiar and comfortable.
Anonymous | Lay Person | Seattle | USA
 
EXCELLENT article in America! Let's do it!!!
Fr. Warren Rouse, O.F.M. | Priest | Los Angeles | USA
 
I hope the Bishops give this proposal prayerful consideration. I have known about the proposed change to the wording of the prayers for a number of years. It is disturbing to me that this is so important to the Church. There are so many other issues that the Church should be dealing with at this time, especially with the push to invite inactive Catholics to return to the Church. "Welcome back, we're changing our prayers." I keep on asking 'Where is God in this?' and 'Do I want to continue to belong to the Catholic Church?' I will continue to pray about this.
Anonymous | Lay Person | Chicago | USA
 
The wisdom of the bishops who do not agree needs to be looked at again! The church is not a democracy, so those in the minority need to be considered. Numbers are not always the answer!!! What teachers are going to present this "new" but similar material which has 42 years of the "other" teaching ahead of it??? Talk about confusion in the Catholic Church! The people who only go to Christmas, Ash Wed., Palm Sunday and Easter will NEVER learn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Madeline Carolyn | Lay Minister | Baltimore | U.S.
 
As a bilingual person, I have learned that translation is an art, not a science. Exact translations often do not make sense nor do they properly convey the spirit of the message. The words we currently use are beautiful works of art. Why change them to something not all will be able to understand?
Alicia Earnest | Lay Person | Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis | United States
 
As a practical theologian and retired faculty member of Villanova University (where I still teach part time) I can attest to the fact that the up coming adult Catholics do not comprehend these words. Their eyes glaze over when I explain the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas/ Aristotle. It just seems to make Catholicism more irrelevant.
Gaile M. Pohlhaus | Lay Person | Philadelphia | United States
 
I have been greatly troubled every time I read or hear anything about this new translation. I take the celebration of Eucharist seriously & strive to truly proclaim the prayers in a manner that is clearly understood by God's people; it is our prayer, not mine. We know that the prayers we presently have are far from perfect, & some are harder to proclaim meaningfully than are others. I admire Bishop Trautman for his earnest, well-founded efforts to modify the process we have been subjected to. His last ditch effort to use the antiphon document to slow the process was perhaps doomed, but I was cheered that 46 of his fellow bishops voted with him. Would that more had seen their way clear to have done so. I agree with Fr. Ryan in wanting to go on record as wishing to seek a way to make our prayer more focused & meaningful. It is discouraging to me that so many steps taken in the Church in these years seem to have been designed to reverse the Second Vatican Council. If that is what those in charge wish to do, I would ask that they simply say so & be done with it. I am now past the age of retirement, in relatively good health, with no definite plans to retire. At one level I have hoped that before this new missal is promulgated I will be retired & not have top deal with it. For sure, like good Fr. Ryan, I will have a hard time convincing anyone that these changes are good worship/liturgy, or even good English.
Charles Greenwell | Priest | San Angelo | USA
 
I think that the translations of the Greek/Latin bible should be based on the languages of the people that convey clearly and concisely God's revealed word. I don't see how using archaic language does this. I have no trouble with the Church adopting official translations of the texts into the language of the people, but I think the Church must include lay persons in the process who are educated and trying to understand God's teaching. We lead lives in a pluralistic society which depends on diction to clearly convey our Catholic/Christian tenets and teachings. "Waiting" in order to involve the people in the process is a practical approach that certainly has merit and accomplishes inclusion. All of us are "people of God" - the ordained, religious and laity!
Richard K. Kurz, Ph.D. | Lay Person | Rochester, NY | USA
 
The proposed translation is an insult to the intelligence and a blow to the spirit of the church community. No amount of "sales talk" will convince this English major and editor of 50 years' experience (who as a medievalist still reads Latin) that the revised liturgy is worth my participation. If the bishops succeed in foisting this travesty on us, I fully intend to follow the example of my sainted mother and haul out my rosary at the beginning of Mass, leaving the insipid diction, fractured syntax and distorted grammar to others. May the "Just Wait" movement flourish!
Judith M. Davis | Lay Person | Fort Wayne-South Bend | USA
 
The change in language will not bring about a greater sense of the Sacred if people are not called to it. Right now the church leaders do not want adult Catholics but Catholics who "pay, pray and obey". Those days are gone. We lay people ( I have a MA in Theology) understand our spirituality and want leaders who are creatively seeking deeper relationships with God and the global community of believers. They lead by example (which is sorely missing). We are not children who do not take responsibility for our faith journey. The translations of the missal is a step backwards in our search for the Sacred. It will not enhance the community Eucharistic ritual.
Mary Jo Loftus | Lay Person | Mpls-St. Paul | USA
 
I have been angry with the whole process ever since the authorities banned the ICEL translation of the Psalms, which were, in my opinion, so fine that I used them to begin my college classes. This is just another step along the same path. I like your approach of "wait" rather than "no," even though I too would be inclined to come on with guns blazing.
Joseph Zimmerman, O.F.M. | Religious | Springfield, IL | USA
 
On the one hand, the Mass in English needs revised for many reasons. 1) Some mistakes and/or poor choices were made such as in Eucharistic Prayer III which says "from east to west" instead of "from the rising of the sun to its setting." 2) English is a living language and so it is appropriate to revisit translations from time to time to see how they might be improved. 3) The prayers currently in use and the ones in the new translation usually have little, if any connection with the Sunday readings. The Collects for Sundays and Feast Days published by I.C.E.L. in 1997 did a very good job of trying to relate the prayers to the readings. On the other hand, far from being an improvement, this new translation is a step backwards. A ridiculously small group made the decision that the best translation is the most literal one. However, most translators believe the goal to be achieved is "dynamic equivalency." As difficult as many of the new collects will be for the presider to proclaim, they are virtually incomprehensible due to word choices, grammatical errors, and often interminably long sentence structure. There ought to have been and needs to be trial in one or more English speaking countries to see what the "sense of the faithful" is about the translation and lack of input from priests and parishioners alike. Let's not rush into what may cause a disastrous reception by a large group of alienated Catholics who feel they have no say so whatever in the Roman Catholic Church.
Paul J. Wharton | Priest | Wheeling-Charleston | United States
 
I have not had an opportunity to see all of the proposed texts; however, does it not seem prudent to implement such extensive changes to our common worship practices in stages? Shouldn't we learn from the mistakes we made in implementing the Novus Ordo too quickly?
Rev. Joseph Marcoux | Priest | Rochester NY | USA
 
I often wonder why the hierarchy of the Church think they are the only ones the Holy Spirit can inspire!!! Back in the Middle Ages for example they just couldn't accept that the Spirit would give an important message for the leader of France to an illiterate shepherd girl named Joan. In fact they allowed her to be burned at the stake! Then, a few centuries later, they said, "Whoops, we made a mistake", and today we call her Saint Joan. Will they ever come to realize the Holy Spirit knows no boundaries?
Grace A. Byerly | Lay Minister | Baltimore | USA
 
I am appalled at the manner in which the Hierarchy is approaching the changes in the english version of our Roman Missal. It will affect my prayer life! I resent their rejection of the work done by those to whom the responsibility was given. This is another example of the Hierarchy in Rome's inability to work with the laity and share in the mission of our church created for us by our Lord Jesus Christ, to be servants to one another!
Carolyn I. Collins | Lay Person | Seattle, WA | United States
 
Father Ryan: I support your effort 100%. Like you, I've informed myself on the issues of vernacular translations and liturgical matters. I've done whatever I could to be "a voice crying in the wilderness" to many clergy and lay friends in the Archdiocese of Detroit regarding the new missal and Rome's continuing efforts to reverse Vatican II's liturgy reforms. I recently emailed Bishop Trautman affirming his efforts to persuade the USCCB to reconsider the new missal - especially in light of the dismissive way his interventions were treated by the USCCB leadership. I've been active in various liturgical ministries before, during and since Vatican II and have studied liturgical history. In spite of the very earliest vernacular translations that were done quickly (and yet were still accurate and dignified), the work of ICEL in the 70s through the 90s produced high quality, reverent and contemporary English texts. Since no translation is perfect, ICEL periodically revised its texts, as needed, for accuracy and proclaimability. That's as it should be! Then Rome issues Liturgiam Authenticam, an disastrous and overly-detailed reversal of translation protocol endorsed by Pope Paul VI since the late 60s. Now we might be stuck with literal and archaic texts in the name of ensuring greater orthodoxy and restoring a "sacral language" in the liturgy, as well as distancing ourselves from translations prepared ecumenically. Along with translation procedures is the problem of Rome's increasing disregard for the legitimate responsibility and competency of local or regional bishops' conferences to prepare vernacular texts - specifically stated in the Liturgy Constitution. Bishop Trautman appealed to this prerogative at the meeting, but to no avail. For all the above considerations, I fully support all concerned clergy and laity taking a respectful - and yet strong - stand for your "wait and review" effort regarding the new English missal. This is very much in line with church teaching on consulting the "sensus fidelium". Peace & Blessings with this initiative! Richard Novak
Richard Novak | Lay Person | Detroit, MI | USA
 
I am one of those people who looked forward to the re-translation of our liturgical texts. The present translation is OK, but (for the most part) very bland. I blame neither the translators nor the principle of dynamic equivalence, since the work was done very quickly, in order to get the vernacular English to the people as soon as possible. For the most part, it was a good first effort, but clearly needed some re-working in order to make it more poetic -- in order to make it sing. Having said all that, I have felt betrayed by the proposed new translations. A fantastic opportunity to convey the message and vision of the Mass has been hijacked by by principles which value antique vocabulary and slavish adoption of Latin word order over truly presenting the "Clear Voice" of the liturgy. I have no problem with the idea of a more formal equivalence translation; however, replacing a poor dynamic equivalence translation with an even poorer formal equivalence translation is no advance. Replacing a bland translation which at least communicates meaning with a overly florid translation which only serves to obscure the meaning is no improvement. My M.A. is in linguistics (University of Toronto, 1995), with a specialty in the sociolinguistics of Canadian English. Studies of speakers of various languages has shown that religious language is, indeed, the most conservative of all uses of a language. Religious language tends to favour a more formal style and is more resistant to changes in form than other uses of language. However, it is clear that there is no "naturally religious" form of any language. A translation that appears to mimic the kind of English used in, say, the Anglican "Book of Common Prayer" will only appeal to people who were raised on it. Those of us who were raised on the (admittedly bland) present translation of the Mass will find it very difficult to accept the new translation in its present form. The most egregious flaw in the new translations, however, is that they have been inspired by a very non-Catholic "either-or" mentality -- i.e, a belief that a translation must be either dynamic or formal. The true Catholic principle, as so beautifully articulated by the Holy Father, is" et. . . et. . ." -- "both-and." While the present translation suffers from being "too dynamic," the proposed re-translation suffers from being "way too formal." The re-translation that we need in the English-speaking Catholic world needs both principles -- a more formal approach to make sure that the poetic images of the Latin are more perfectly conveyed, with a judicious application of dynamic equivalence to ensure that the grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure will actually convey those images, rather than obscure them. One of the basic principles of linguistics is that languages belong to the people who speak them. Living languages evolve over time. In order to succeed today, and thus be able to prayed and cherished in the future, the new translation of the liturgy must reflect the best forms of English in use today. The proposed translation fails in its purposes and will be rejected and ridiculed by the overwhelming majority of both priests and people. In closing, I pray that a truly "Clear Voice" translation will be developed and adopted, so that our most important communal prayer, the Mass, will indeed raise both the minds and the hearts of the faithful in one great act of thanksgiving to God for the love and mercy poured out for us in the sacrifice of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. May the Blessed Virgin Mary join her prayers to ours, so that the message of salvation will ring out clearly in all the languages of earth.
David C Bittner, CSB | Priest | Edmonton, Alberta | Canada
 
I was ordained before Vatican II. I am now retired and will not say a public mass with the new translation.
Anonymous | Priest | Pensacola Tallahassee | USA
 
In many ways, language is who we are (the Word became flesh). The story of Pentecost has those of the world gathered in Jerusalem hearing the Gospel in their own languages. God comes to us as we are (as well as the reaffirmation of our dignity through the Incarnation) When an outside structure is imposed on the language, two things occur: the language is no longer reflective of the people as language develops through the lived experience of the people; and the sense of people's dignity and freedom is eroded. Our understanding of who we are comes through language, and now we are being told that our expression of faith is "not good enough". Although the Church is not a democracy, all of us, through our baptisms, share in the mission of the Church. Each people's experience of salvation equips them to praise and thank God collectively, and its expression can be best done by those of a particular language and way of life.
Michael Goc | Lay Person | Harrisburg | U.S.
 
I have to admit I was one of the fearful/wanting to be anonymous folks...then I read the following quote from the NCR article "And I think we have a church where it is still possible to ask questions; where it is still our responsibility to ask questions." it is still our responsibility to ask questions. it is still our responsibility to ask questions. it is still our responsibility to ask questions. Thanks for the reminder
Theresa McDermott-Erskine | Lay Minister | Seattle | USA

I very much welcome this initiative because changes to the liturgy affect the faith of the Church, on the principle 'lex orandi, lex credendi'. Such far-reaching changes, so heavily criticised by reputable authorities, should be road-tested first. The centrally driven and secretive procedure used hitherto is certainly not in the spirit of Vatican II.
Francis McDonagh | Lay Minister | Westminster | England
 
I am appalled at the way this project is being carried out. I worked in the field of liturgy for forty-seven years, and have studied liturgical and sacramental theology. To try to turn back the clock and utterly ignore what Vatican II has legitimately promulgated is wrong. The pre-Vatican Church is gone, people. If you think Catholics are going to allow Trent clericalism to take over once more, think again. Think of what the Church was like during the time of Trent! Nothing could have been more corrupt. And people are saying the same thing now. You say you don't care if people will leave over this issue; that the Church will be smaller but it will be holier. What arrogance! And if it is smaller, will that be enough to support the Church financially? It will die out, except for the breakaway groups who have already begun their own ways to worship. Some of the changes you propose are absurd. Let's speak plain English or plain German, or plain French, or whatever. And find something else to do to make yourselves useful for a change.
Dorothy Paulson | Lay Minister | St.Paul-Minneapolis Minnesota | USA
 
I have read the new "translations". They slavish literal translations of the Latin, as if these Latin words were the words of Jesus Himself! The argument that parish liturgies need to be more "solemn" and "sacred" certainly applies to many parishes, but the same argument applied to many parishes pre-Vatican II
Ken Bergman | Lay Minister | Kansas City, Kansas | USA
 
The article in America expresses my thoughts and feelings exactly. The new translations will be one more nail in the coffin of the Church's credibility and relevance.
Anonymous | Priest | Davenport, Iowa | USA
 
I believe that change is good, but that responsible change always has concern for the people most affected. Waiting, studying, trying, and evaluating makes the most sense. We don't need more division in our Church.
Ann Marie Eckert | Lay Minister | Buffalo | USA
 
I have heard several priests say they would rather retire early than try to foist this translation on the people.
Stephen Humphrey | Priest | Belleville | USA
 
Best of luck with this admirable venture. Please, please let someone listen to this cry!
Sean E. Hall | Priest | Hexham and Newcastle | England
 
I belong to the Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament and am editor of Emmanuel magazine. I believe in the power of good liturgy. I am especially concerned, that, if people like myself are so ambivalent about the new translations, we will never be able to convince the people that this is for their own good. Our people are not ignorant, and the "pay, pray, and obey" era is long gone. If the translations fly in the face of common sense and reflect a theological agenda rather than prayerful praise, I fear we may reap the whirlwind.
Paul Bernier | Priest | Cleveland | USA
 
I have worked hard to make the texts of the Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI over my 42 years as a priest to be the Prayer of the People of God; I have been chosen as Presider at our Greatest Prayer, The Eucharist. The people in the pews are comfortable with these Mass texts and they are a part of their prayer life and a means to their continual journey to holiness. To change them to conform more to the the Latin and more to the Thomistic Theological wording will not only be disruptive of the flow of their prayer, but will also confuse the majority of them not familiar with Thomistic Philosophy and Theology. I fear it will drive a wedge into their faith, pushing some to say it does not matter what we believe as long as we love God and our neighbor as ourselves - a real nurturing of Indifferentism. Please hear the Sensus Fidelium and the Spirit of God speaking through this petition and give it serious and prayerful consideration.
Arthur B. Schute | Priest | Archdiocese of Newark | USA
 
I was a priest studying for a post graduate degree in Rome during 1963-1965 and can support Fr. Ryan's experience of euphoria during the Council and present day despair at the erosion of the dream. I was also private secretary to Archbishop Hurley who was for many years Chairman of ICEL. It was one of the most painful episodes of his long and glorious life to see how Rome bulldozed and imposed the present abominable translation. Collegiality has been dictatorially silenced. Rome's complete control over the appointment of Bishop's has cornered the control of our mother Church. Change can seemingly come only from loyal dissent from priests and people.
Patrick AKAL | Lay Person | Durban | South Africa
 
I have read enough of the pre-promulgation descriptions to request that the translations be put on hold. Try them out in limited sites, if you must, but the awkwardness of wording is outrageous. In the face of the context of our times, such changes in the wording of our liturgical prayer convinces me that those in the Vatican are out of touch with the rest of the church. With the clergy abuse and cover-up, still uncovering the arrogance and amorality of the system of clericalism, this ridiculous experiment in "Simon Says", stretches one's ties to Rome to the breaking point.
Elizabeth COUBLE | Lay Minister | Boston | USA
 
I was born into the Catholic Church, attended 16 years of Catholic school, was married in the Catholic Church, have baptized my three children into the Church and was finally confirmed at the age of 40. I lived and breathed Catholicism, wrestled with my faith, and finally, confidently, decide that it is the faith not only of my parents and grandparents, but for me and my children. While this is true, I still consider myself a critical Catholic, I have never been able to stop asking questions. Since moving to the American Southeast recently, the questions have been coming much faster than the answers. I'm not sure that ungainly, antiquated language in the Mass would help secure me and my family to a Church at which I feel less and less at home. Catholicism is more than a belief system to me, it is the culture in which I was raised. The prospect of change within it is not intolerable to me, I believe that change often indicates signs of life. However, I was raised to understand that the people are the Church, and it seems only right to me that changes to the language of the Church should be discussed with and by the people of whom it is comprised.
Susan Harvey | Lay Person | St. Augustine | USA
 
Fr. Ryan, Your article is an inspiration, and it would go well for bishops to heed the call to wait. Re: "In our wildest dreams could we ever have imagined that we would live to witness what seems more and more like the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the Council's decree?" No, of course not. I grew up in the 1940's and 50's and find nothing, absolutely nothing to recommend a return to language or anything resembling liturgy in those days. I suspect much nostalgia does not emanate from experience. Re: "I know it might smack of insubordination to talk this way, but it could also be a show of loyalty and plain good sense... loyalty not to any ideological agenda but to our people," A favorite humorous saying of mine is that creative insubordination is necessary to be an effective priest in this environment. Thanks for the loyalty and plain good sense. Bottom line: this is not really about prayers so much, as about ecclesiology. A power structure and all the fears behind its demise are the last gasp of what cannot in the end be stopped, no matter how hard Benedict tries. Minor tidbit: I note the listing of categories under "I am a" at the top of the petition here is vertical. What about a horizontal, alphabetical listing for visual and maybe substantive effect (grin)? Are we all equal only before God?
Carolyn Disco | Lay Person | Manchester, NH | USA
 
As a university professor of classics (Latin and Greek) for over 40 years, I can say that one of the first "rules" of translation is to avoid English which is freighted with turgid Latinate vocabulary and syntax. The various samples I have seen of the new translation should, in my view, be marked "revise and resubmit." The heavy verbiage of the present effort will, I fear, make the eyes of many folks at Mass glaze over.
Daniel P. Harmon | Lay Person | Seattle | USA
 
I'm a lowly lay person. I say that not because I view the laity as lowly but because I am just a normal Joe who participates a little in parish life and enjoys a beer at the corner bar. I To the extent I can, I feed the poor, provide clothing to the naked, housing to the homeless etc. Much of my motivation comes from our liturgy. Before the Bishops' conference last month, when I heard of Bishop Trautman's concern over the translations, I read some of them and was aghast at what I read. I asked my granddaughter to use her computer magic and run a few random paragraphs through a language analyzer which computes the number of years of education required to understand the text. I was shocked to find that an education several years beyond that required for a PhD was required. I wrote a letter to Bishop Trautman thanking him for the service he was doing for the people of God and encouraging him to continue at the conference. I also sent a similar letter to my own Bishop. To my great delight. Bishop Trautman offered a strenuous defense of his position at the conference only to be mocked by Cardinal George for his efforts. To my mind, 11:00AM Sunday morning may well be America's most unchristian hour in the week and three days in the second week of November its three most unchristian days. I pray and will continue to pray that your initiative will bear fruit.
Bernie | Lay Person | Arlington VA | USA
 
Having a foot on either side of Vatican II, I can say I appreciate my Catholic history, but I have no desire to resurrect it. We must live in the present, speaking with a contemporary vocabulary, praying in the world we now inhabit. The vernacular was adopted to make it more understandable. Why should we ever consider making it less so?
Doug Zimmer | Lay Minister | Seattle | USA
 
Thank you for opportunity to sign my name. It is becoming harder and harder to understand the mind of Rome and "why" it is necessary to do this. I am old enough to remember the Tridentine mass and I can still remember the Latin responses. Now, I love the mass. It makes sense. I am really praying. I feel as though I am being treated as a little child who is being to told to take my nasty medicine because it is good for me. I don't speak Latin nor have I ever thought it to be a beautiful language. The translation does not make the language of the mass more understandable or beautiful. We will also have to change the music we have grown to love. So sad. Three major changes to the liturgy in a lifetime is way too much. Again, Thank you for setting up this website.
Debbie Elliott | Lay Person | Birmingham | USA
 
My favorite example of how this new translation is hopelessly out of touch is their use of the phrase, "the gibbet of the cross." I do not know how far into antiquity they reached for that, but as every parent or grandparent of a youngster these days knows, a "gibbet" is one of those ornaments that kids put in crocs, those popular, brightly-colored, rubber shoes. Children everywhere will surely wonder why the cross had gibbets on it, why we are praying for their shoes or who knows how else they will interpret that phrase. Too bad no parents, grandparents or 10-year-olds were consulted ahead of time.
Kathleen Kichline | Lay Minister | Seattle | WA
 
I too have followed the debates on the new missal and have read portions of the texts on the Bishops' Conference website. No where in this process, in the two dioceses I have lived in during this translation process, have the priests, deacons or laity been invited to be part of the conversation. Sadly, this is the Church's Liturgy" but a huge segment of the Church has been left out. Bishop Trautman has been a voice of reason....only to be ignored by his fellow bishops. I thank him for his efforts and for his pastoral care for the rest of us. As a priest, I would also find it difficult to "sell" the product. I support the idea of putting a hold on the process and getting this right.
Fr. Vincent Gluc, OFM Conv. | Priest | Baltimore | USA
 
Quiet, prayerful waiting is modeled by Jesus and voiced in numerous places in scripture. To slow the pace for adopting the changes in the Roman Missal is in accord with this precedent. The Spirit will not disappoint! Thank you for taking the initiative on this.
Joneen Keuler | Religious | Milwaukee, Wisconsin | United States
 
I taught liturgy and sacramental theology for 15 years after getting a STD in Rome in the 60's. I too followed carefully the work on translations and agree with Bishop Trautman. I am saddened what is taking place at present. Vatican II Const. on the Liturgy gave episcopal conferences the right and responsibility to make appropriate translations. Now that is being taken away. Anything that can be done to stop this disaster is worth working on. I will probably keep using some of the present translations, at least for the parts that the presider speaks. God help us
Rev. Louis Arceneaux, c.m. | Priest | Congregation of the Mission, New Orleans | USA
 
There is an old saying - don't fix something that doesn't need fixing. Our present liturgical prayer had been refined and it works. I realize that the long-term effort of all of this is to return to preVatican II days. I lived through those days and I will never go there again and I pray that those who, after all of these years, still can't accept the will of the Council will see the light and stop this effort. I am a Vat II Deacon and served the church for 33 years in that capacity. I hope and pray that this effort of slowing down and thinking things through will be successful.
W. Norman Talbot | Deacon | Trenton | USA
 
I grew up with the Latin Mass and was an altar boy until in my 20s. I've found much of the English liturgy to have been adopted from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, which is beautiful in many ways, and I think the English liturgy is largely responsible for the lay person's understanding of its meaning. A priest who has been responsible for conformance to the liturgy in his diocese recently remarked about the Latin Mass, "No one wants to come to church and listen to a lot of gibberish." Now, when I have read numerous examples of the coming translation, it sounds to me like even more gibberish. I cannot comprehend how these bishops can possibly be serious. But then, when I think about how disconnected the Church's hierarchy is from the real world, it fits the pattern. This looks to me like self-destruct of the highest order.
Dan Lavely | Lay Person | Knoxville, TN | USA
 
I've seen some of the changes in familiar prayers and canticles. If we can't get through a prayer because we can't understand it, we'll be less likely to be able to pray it. Word and thought need to blend seamlessly in prayer. The wording I've seen appears archaic and in some cases disjointed. This will be a hard pill for many of the faithful to swallow.
Donald Macnamara | Lay Minister | Pittsburgh | USA
 
The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. Thank you for taking that. May your effort be blessed with success.
John Peterson, O.P. | Religious | Providence | USA
 
The translations I've seen are wordy and not the language we speak. Some people are going to laugh. Others are going to shake their heads in disbelief and disgust. How disheartening this is.
Rev. John Mancini, OSFS | Priest | Saginaw | USA
 
Thank you. This is my last hope. I already asked my Lutheran and Episcopal friends to give me the text from their services. The changes have nothing to do with reverence or good liturgy, and everything to do with power.
James R. Sheehan | Lay Person | Rockville Centre | USA
 
Fr. Ryan's article is outstanding and frightening. He has highlighted two very sad things, "the dismantling" of the achievements of Vatican II and that the bishops abandoned "pastoral responsibility." With this vote, among others, episcopal collegiality is dead and buried. But the new edicts on translation are simply part of the larger pattern of restoration of pre-Vatican II practice and ethos. One of the shibboleths that the hierarchy uses to criticize any innovation is that it might "confuse the faithful." This new edict will cause massive confusion. Finally all over the world people can actually pray the Mass aloud; now there will be a cacophony of voices as people simply get mixed up. Not only have the bishops shown pastoral irresponsibility toward the people of God, they have added to the burdens of an already beleaguered but dedicated group of parish priests. Given all the other challenges facing their diminished ranks, the priests will be asked to waste time on schooling people in the new translations. But if the bishops do not wait and individual priests are not able or willing to implement the changes, will they be removed from ministry? How many bishops want to face this task?
John R Donahue,S.J. | Priest | Baltimore | United States
 
While I have not read the entire translation what I have seen and heard is enough to cause me real concern. The current vernacular translation has manifold weaknesses, but this sounds much worse. I know of many young priests who are enamored of the "Tridentine Mass". They are far too young to remember it. Those of us who do, remember saying the rosary, ogling members of the opposite sex or going over our to do list for Sunday while sitting in church. After all it was the priest's Mass which we "heard"(though mostly you couldn't). In the view of many in the Hierarchy it seemed as if we were just fodder for the fires of Hell and a revenue base. "Father" was the authority on all things religious. We were encouraged not to study scripture lest we become confused, poor benighted lay persons that we were. One wonders if certain members of the reverend clergy, particularly the younger ones< are not hoping for a return of those halcyon days.
James K. Walton | Lay Person | Washington, DC | USA
 
I am totally opposed to the recent changes in the Roman Missal. Having studied in a Roman Catholic seminary for four years in the 1980's I was taught and convinced of the virtues and values of Vatican II. Going back in time will not bring people back to the faith; a holy, well-educated Church and clergy will, as well as a liturgy which is understandable and simple as were the liturgies in the earliest years of our Church.
Ann Brown | Lay Minister | Columbus, Ohio | USA
 
I have spent a lot of time informing my conscience, discerning what is of God and what isn't, what is more Jesus-like and what isn't. Liturgy, and the community with which I share the liturgy, participate in it, is VERY important to me. I am very aware of how affirming and unifying and challenging the words of liturgy and the gestures that surround them can be. And also terribly aware of how jarring, ridiculous, and distracting a bad or awkwardly placed word or phrase can be. I love the words that call me to be more present to Jesus's call, more aware of God's presence in all persons I meet, and challenge me to love as I am loved by our God. I challenge the bishops to wait to implement this new Roman Missal till further study and fine-tuning has been completed. I am painfully aware of how precarious the people's trust of the hierarchy is at this point in time, how precarious MY trust in the hierarchy is. Please do not take this step which will almost surely erode that trust further. We are the Church. We are the People of God. Please help us to be the best people we can be. Please help give us the most excellent tools we can have to aide us to follow Jesus challenge to help make God's "kingdom come, on Earth as it is in Heaven". Thank you, and may the Spirit guide your discernment on this very important issue.
Colleen Powell | Lay Person | Louisville | United States of America
 
Father Ryan, I had given up hoping for such a forum as you suggest. Unfortunately, it's not the way the smart money bets. When I wrote to my bishop to express frustration with the process in May 2007 I was told, "There is no reason for you to feel frustration. Nor is there any reason for you or any one else to think a matter of this kind should be the subject of consultation of the laity to determine what they might want." Nevertheless, count me in. "What may mon do but fonde?" "What may man do buy try" as Sir Gawain said when he set out on a journey to have his head cut off. Peter Farley (Ph.D. English Literature, Fordham University)
Peter Farley | Lay Person | Rockville Centre NY | USA
 
The Church is the whole people of God, including the main-line Christian Churches like Episcopal and Eastern Orthodox, including women, including even priests active in the local church. We preach the principle of subsidiarity to corporations and government. The church cannot be run well just by a few "conservatives" in the Vatican. " Liberals" in the local church are also members of the Church. We are losing many young members of the Church. Vocations to the priesthood and religious life are dwindling. We are becoming obsessed with unborn babies and neglect them when they are born. We need a more balanced approach. We need to stress the hierarchy of truths and spend more time meditating on the mystery of the Triune God. The Son and the Holy Spirit are equal to the Father. In fact, they have the same identical nature. The Pope and the Bishops are leaders in order to serve. There need to be regular structures through which the voice of the faithful is heard. Where are the ears of the Church? The Church is the whole people of God.
Fr. Benjamin J. Urmston, S.J., PhD | Priest | Cincinnati | United States
 
This proposal has merit. I'm reminded how carefully we entered into the present full English translation, starting with only parts of the Mass. We learned a lot subsequently from experimental innovations at liturgy conferences, regarding gesture, liturgical decor, use of sacramental symbol. it's the best way to go with something this precious, our own language, how we use it for prayer with groups.
Richard W. Bollman, S.J. | Priest | Cincinnati | United States of America
 
I have just returned from Ireland where the fallout from the clerical child sex abuse scandal is immense - in the midst of this foundation rocking event the Irish Church, along with other English speaking countries, is preparing to impose this idiocy of the new translation on people who are reeling from the most serious scandal to engulf the RC Church is centuries - it seems a question of 'fiddling while Rome burns' - literally. This imposition would, in my view, be a step too far for our brothers and sisters in Ireland
Moira Potier | Lay Person | Liverpool | UK
 
I want a mass translation which, whilst maintaining the beauty of the great English language, also uses simplicity. I am particularly concerned that those who have English as a second language, or those who may not have had the benefit of an advanced education, shouldn't have unnecessary obstacles placed in their way during worship.
Elizabeth Elliott | Lay Person | Hallam | DN5 7PN
 
It seems odd to me that people can simply ignore the aspects of the Second Vatican Council because it doesn't fit with their beliefs. Some conservative people talk about others being "cafeteria Catholics." How does ignoring or dismantling the Second Vatican Council differ from that? If we undo that beautiful moment in Church history, will there be anything in our Church that will be too sacred to "undo" to meet the beliefs of people in a position to manipulate our theology and doctrine? This is a very frightening moment to me.
Don Wooldridge | Lay Minister | Archdiocese of Louisville | USA
 
I was a pre-teenager when the Vatican II vision went into effect so many years ago. I remember my father complaining about all the changes in the Church - while I celebrated them. He eventually grew to love the new Mass as much as I did. I do not think I will be celebrating these changes - ever! Change things if they are wrong, but don't change words just because they are not a literal translation. Anyone who has studied a foreign language knows that literal translations are sometimes very awkward - and sometimes meaningless. No part of our sacred liturgy should ever be meaningless.
P.S. Parrott | Lay Person | Richmond, Virginia | USA
 
When Vatican II was taking place, I was in the minor seminary. Though we discussed the Council, it was a bit overwhelming as a freshman. I been an ardent follower of the Church, the liturgy, and its politics. The erosion of the goals and work of the Council has been disheartening. Though part of the effort of the Council was to involve lay people more extensively, the Church's practice has slowly be exclusionary instead of becoming a home for all God's people. The new translation of the Roman Missal highlighted in the article seem literarily clumsy and are reminiscent of my old learning of Ablative Absolutes. Hopefully, control by the few will not supersede the hopes and faith of the many.
Timothy M. Short | Lay Person | Milwaukee | U.S.A.
 
Waiting while trying out the new translation for a year in limited areas is a good idea. Vatican II turned out to be a very good thing and I welcomed it at the time, but we sure had to endure a lot of garbage in the process. The baby was thrown out with the bath water and much beauty was abandoned. Careful planning would have been better. Let's not make the same mistake now.  There's nothing wrong with proper modern English.
Anonymous | Lay Person | Youngstown Ohio | USA
 
I will pray for the church (the people of God) that we can survive in unity from this new blow made by a group of power hungry men. Makes me glad to be a woman in the church.
Sarah Harmony | Lay Person | Arlington, VA | USA
 
The new translation is not at all in keeping with reasonableness or any sensitivity to the people. Moreover, the medieval manner in which this translation is being managed from Rome is not only a disgrace but a trigger for rejection that will only be another embarrassment for the Church. Cannot the powers that be ever learn even from recent history ? "Humane Vitae" comes to mind.
EMIL ANDERSEN | Priest | SEATTLE | USA
 
Sadly, I doubt this will make any difference but w e all have to try.
David Igoe | Lay Person | St Andrew's and Edinburgh | United Kingdom
 
For all the "Lit Authentica" 'ideal' the proposed translation is not always faithful to the Latin! the translation is what one might expect from a lower highschool student: translating qwords not sentences.
John P Woods | Priest | Maitland newcastle | Australia
 
Having attended several workshops in anticipation of the "Roman Missal" it seems that those entrusted with "preparing us" are totally acquiescent. Thank you for your leadership and right reasoning and yes let us shout out 'Just Wait .'
V.Warwick James | Priest | San Jose | U.S.A.
 
While I believe in the precepts, doctrine and history of my church, and the respect that should be given to the bishops and their status, I must strongly object to imposition of the new missal without discussion, input and inclusion from the faithful. We have come too far in our development as Catholics to be led around blindly as sheep, and expected to follow a potential step backward in further development and even re-unification with people and faith communities which at one time belonged to the Roman Catholic doctrine, but broke away for like circumstances such as this. In my diocese, our current Archbishop is retiring effective at the end of this year. One of the struggles we endured during his tenure, especially early on, was that prior to his installation, he had never served as a parish priest, but as a theologian at seminary. As a result, he has had difficult times in dealing with parish issues, such as closure of a parish, school consolidations, finances, shortages in the priesthood, etc. It seems to me that this decision to force a new translation upon the faithful is just as shortsighted.
Michael A. Sullivan | Lay Minister | Cincinnati, OH. | United States
 
This translation is the closest thing they can come to doing away with the vernacular, i.e., the language of the people, without returning to Latin. I think this frenzy with making a literal translation of the Latin is a true heresy, especially when we will be forced to proclaim that Christ died for many which, in English, clearly excludes the Scriptural dogma of Christ dying for all.
Br. Patrick McSherry, OFM Cap | Priest | Capuchin Franciscan | USA
 
I am delighted to have the opportunity to sign this petition. I have been concerned about the third edition of the Roman Missal ever since the appalling treatment of ICEL in 2002 and the issue of Liturgiam Authenticam. It is simply not acceptable, nor in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, to impose the proposed text of the Roman Missal (3rd Edition) on the English-speaking Church. The proposed text is problematic from a pastoral point of view and the English Language used in the drafts would not pass an examination in High School. The Congregation for Divine Worship should listen to the experience of the Church of England whose wide consultation at every level produced their present missal, "Common Worship". There is anger and dismay among clergy about the proposed texts. The consultation has been so narrow and secretive that one has to ask: is ICEL and the Congregation for Divine Worship in touch with the Church?
Rev. David P. Heywood | Priest | Liverpool | England
 
Thank you so much for this courageous article! It expresses exactly my thought on this! I am the pastor of a 10,000 plus members parish, and whenever I have given a preview of the new proposed translation to parishioners, the reaction is often, "You've got to be kidding!"
Charles H. Schramm | Priest | Milwaukee | USA
 
Thank you for this effort. I cannot agree more with the collegial way you are going about this. It is reasonable, responsible and pastoral.
Francis X. Callahan | Priest | Baltimore | USA
 
I cannot just understand that our liturgy is drifting away from the humanity in it, used of common language, but bringing back of archaic expressions such as "with your spirit", "consubstantial"(?!?) etc. Even the law is campaigning for plain language. Why do we Catholics try to pretend to be "other" than other human beings, other believers and other Christians? WE are not fanatics, are we?
Robert Ochola-Lukwiya | Priest | Kokstad | South Afica
 
I am not so concerned about the language of the new sacramentary - the Anglicans after all have survived rich Elizabethan baritones. What concerns me is 1) the pettiness of it all; 2) the strange conviction that somehow fidelity to the Latin text is owed the same reverence that we expect to give ancient biblical texts in translating the bible;; 3) the unwillingness to concede that the regional church should make the final judgment on the language of worship to be spoken in their country!.
Fr Jonathan Foster, OFM | Religious | Joliet | USA
 
That I am a Roman Catholic, and that I am a priest, is a gift of the Second Vatican Council, whose Spirit-led changes allowed me to convert to the Roman Catholic Church. For me the new Roman Missal is symbolic of something more significant taking place, the retreat from the promise and vision of Vatican II. For this convert it becomes a betrayal. And for those responsible to suggest that my parishioners are somehow less reverent because of the current Sacramentary is just plain ludicrous. I firmly believe that this translation will further empty our pews, not simply because it's bad English using dated vocabulary, but because conscientious Catholics are tired of such pettiness in the face of really disturbing trends in the Church today--empty pews, priest shortages, global issues like hunger, war, and climate change, and the ongoing fallout from the abuse scandal. Wait! Wait! Wait! Please wait!
Rudolph C. Bullman | Priest | Helena | USA
 
When I read the proposal to "wait," for a period of testing and evaluation, it was like a cool breeze passing through an arid wasteland. As a priest, I have been so disheartened by the ongoing assault on the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council that I too was beginning to give up on advocating for what is best for our people. How can one advocate for something if one has no voice? Perhaps this initiative will give voice to the majority of American Catholics who are not opposed to the liturgical reforms of Vatican II but embrace them with enthusiasm.
Rev. J. Mark Hobson | Priest | Cleveland | USA
 
I too was a theology student in Rome during the council and when Sacrosanctum concilium was finally voted on and proclaimed. After doctoral studies I returned to the States and participated in the implementation of the liturgical reforms which we have witnessed in the years since. I am mad with frustration and indignation at the misguided linguistic philosophy of the new translators of the liturgical texts and the various rubrical instructions that have gradually been trying to rescind the reforms of Vatican II. To start with, has no one working on these changes ever read Jungmann's "The Mass of the Roman Rite" and understood how the so-called Tridentine Mass came to be the way it was? We lay people too should stand up and just say "no"! We have a right to a decent worship experience. Those who claim that the present liturgy is somehow a perversion of the Latin rite are guilty of a very grievous slander. Certainly the present text, and any text, can be improved. But imposing a crabbed word-for-word transliteration of all sorts of Latin idioms into unspeakable English is not an improvement. Translators must have an intimate knowledge of the language and culture of the original text, but also a sensitive ear and literary sense for graceful, directly understandable English as well. Sacramenta propter homines! Frank Nichols
Francis W Nichols | Lay Person | St Louis, MO | USA
 
I have worked in liturgy for the past 35+ years, through all the experimental periods until now. Never have I felt more disheartened than now, when so many beautiful hard-won gains in building real community worship, reverent and meaningful, seem to be reversing. Please follow up on this proposal of testing, and even perhaps "tweaking" as we work it through before, once again, confusing the faithful for no reason.
Elizabeth A. Kenney | Lay Person | Philadelphia | USA
 
In South Africa our bishops jumped the gun and introduced this translation BUT WITHOUT, TO THE VERY BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, ANY CATECHISIS as your article suggests: "Just introduce it " more or less sums it up. Our Cardinal wrote a letter to our weekly catholic newspaper, "The Southern Cross" praising the 'humility' of those priests who introduced it; the subtext being those who have not lack humility or whatever!! The parish, of which I am pastor, after been given time to study this translation then voted overwhelmingly to reject it. They did not say, "Wait" they simply said NO and that's where it remains today.
Victor Kotze | Priest | Johannesburg | South Africa
 
A quote from CS Lewis discussing the new 'Alternative Service Book' in the Church of England (started in 1955 and published in 1980) is pertinent to us today: I know there must be change. But is this the right moment? Two signs of the right moment occur to me. One would be a unity among us which enabled the Church" (not some momentarily triumphant party) "to speak through the new work with a united voice. The other would be the manifest presence, somewhere in the Church, of the specifically literary talent needed for composing a good prayer. Prose needs to be not only very good but very good in a very special way, if it is to stand up to reiterated reading aloud.
Rosemary Gravenor | Lay Person | KwaZulu Natal | South Africa
 
If word changes are in line for the liturgy then i suggest that they be made by some women -poets -composers- wordsmiths- the prayers and words of liturgy are filled with gray language. we need words that are filled with blood, compassion, imagination. The sterile world of these clerics have no connection with life or vibrant liturgy. The words and metaphors should move heaven and earth, not bore God and us.
rich broderick | Priest | albany, ny | usa
 
"latinizing" the English liturgy by imposing the syntax and grammatical structures of Latin on English is the opposite of inculturation and makes the text clumsy, unwieldy and difficult to proclaim. In addition "descent to hell", if taken literally, is heretical -- Calvin said that the Father punished Christ with the pains of hell. The same can be said for "pro multis" [for many]. Official Church teaching is that Christ died for all. At best these phrases are misleading, at worst heretical. We need to "say what we mean and mean what we say."
John Converset, MCCJ | Priest | Johannesburg | South Africa
 
While not all of the translations are poor, (many are, in fact, a vast improvement on current texts) the real clunkers, such as the Gloria and the Creed, are a mess and need to be re-evaluated. We've waited this long so a little longer to do it right is not too much to ask.
Anonymous | Priest | Cleveland (Capuchin Province of St. Augustine) | United States
 
I hope this petition will be seen as sign of our love for the Eucharist and respect for the people of God.
John Helm | Lay Person | Louisville | USA
 
Let's live Vatican II
Anonymous | Lay Minister | LaCrosse | USA
 
I can't believe the lack of leadership among our bishops Parishes closing because of the lack of priests - didn't Jesus say "do this in memory of me"? The bishops, with their supine loyalty to Rome, contravene Jesus and say not so, if we can't find a male celibate, we're not going to do what Jesus asked on His last night on earth. This latest farce of a translation and its method of implementation indicates that the bishops just wants to treat us as children. It's stupid, stupid, stupid! Isn't there one bishop with balls who can stand up for the People of God? And don't tell me, as bishops have been wont to do, if you don't like it, just go to some other church. I'll stay with it until the day I die; the church is the People of God and for their sake, I will speak truth to power.
Tom Callanan | Lay Person | Portland , Oregon | USA
 
Thanks for starting a spiritual 'Tea Party'. The complete reversal from Vatican II fills me with much pain and confusion. I agree totally with all you say; how can they spend so much time and effort on latinizing the Church when we have grave social injustices and real spiritual needs which are completely ignored. God bless you and keep up the work. I wish I knew how to help with your mission. Father Henry Schmidt
Father Henry Schmidt | Priest | Springfield, Illinois | USA
 
As a retired English professor, I have worked my entire career to purge awkward phrasing and stilted language from both student and professional writing. The persuasive power of ordinary language, phrased elegantly, is considerable and should not be dismissed lightly by Church leadership. The approach suggested in this statement is reasonable and respectful of the expertise a concerned Catholic laity can bring to this problem; the Vatican should listen to what we request.
Dr. Donald Barshis | Lay Person | Chicago, IL | United States
 
Language is more than just words. When the Liturgy began to be celebrated "in the language of the people," it brought many closer to the Table. The stiltification of language does nothing but block access to the meaning and celebration of the Liturgy. Any first year Latin student knows that literal translations convey the poorest meaning of the original texts.
Fr. David W. La Planate | Priest | Milwaukee | USA
 
As a lover of language with a Ph.D. in German Language and Literature and a retired teacher of German and English, oh, and let's not forget five years of Latin, I am appalled at this development. I thought that the bishops would never approve these changes. I admire Fr. Michael Ryan's restraint in suggesting that we just wait and give the people a chance to have a say in this, which, of course, is not how the Vatican has historically operated. My pastor is aware of my indignation. I just think that there ought to be some kind of massive rebellion against this, and this from a person who is keenly aware of the virtue of obedience. Does i t have any meaning today? If so, just what? How? I believe profoundly in its importance, as in "He was obedient unto death . . . . " As for the people in the pews, there is such widespread indifference to good, grammatical English, even in newspapers, magazines, among newscasters and talk show hosts, that I'm not so sure that many would care all that much. I would love to be proved completely wrong in this assessment. Thanks for offering us this opportunity.
Mickey (Mary) Magee Onofrietto | Lay Minister | Albany | USA
 
As a writer, editor, translator, and poet, I am horrified by the clumsy language of the new translations. As a Catholic lay person, I am even more horrified by the process through which these translations are being forced upon us. I grew up in the light of Vatican II, and its systematic dismantling is one of the greatest tragedies in the history of our Church.
Mary K. Hawley | Lay Person | Chicago | United States
 
I have spent my life composing liturgical music for what has proven to be strong, poetic texts. In 45 years a wealth of good settings has entered the congregational repertoire. Many composers have accomplished what the Church has asked of them and it is tragic that so many Bishops here and in Rome are anxious to take that repertoire away from our people for unknown settings to come of a clumsy, ungraceful new translation. The proposal to "just wait" while engaging in a trial period with select parishes throughout the English-speaking world might just save the Bishops from the embarrassment sure to come.
RICHARD PROULX | Lay Person | Chicago | USA
 
Thank you Fr. Ryan for your courage in speaking up and out on this issue. The proposal you suggest is in my opinion a very generous offer. The "insubordination" seems to be on the part of the ones who are planning to impose the "new translation" for the English speaking people of the Church. The new translation assaults the English language, the English speaking members of the Church and the Vatican II Council documents. It sounds like the new translation is being driven by fear.....fear of losing the illusion of power and control perhaps? The Vatican II Council documents were created in faith and I believe they were led by the Spirit. If a new translation of our liturgical prayer is warranted, then fear has no place in the process. Can we not trust the Spirit once again? I personally prefer canceling the entire "new translation" and if even necessary starting over with a more collegial process....including the majority of the Church left out. However, surely, Fr. Ryan's proposal of a "pilot project" would not pose a threat to faithful Church leadership if fear was cast out of their consideration and deliberations. These same leaders would then be able to listen to the rest of the people of God carefully and wisely. Let's hope Rome is listening now.
Margaret Shannon | Religious | Seattle | United States
 
In a class I was teaching on Early Christianity, I was commenting on how important language is in expressing religious experience, specifically referring to the impact of moving from Aramaic to Greek in the early church. As an example of the importance of language, I put the "old" and "new" versions of some of the liturgical changes on an overhead. The RCs in the class were incensed at the grossly poor grammar, overly sacral theological emphasis, and outright non-inclusive language - I had a firestorm on my hands...Those attending services in the future will love the new translation, the rest of us will not be there...Dennis Rader
dennis rader | Lay Person | green bay | usa
 
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Thank you for taking this step, and inviting us to take it with you.
Lorelei Herres | Lay Person | Seattle | USA
 
Pastoral concern makes us sign this, plus the years of pastoral experience that make us say, "Please, wait! There must be a way to grow together as the body of Christ without disrespecting the experience and wisdom of the people of God." Can we listen to one another with respect? If we cannot then the agenda seems not to be one of working together in charity but more of a totalitarian command to perform.
Fr. Robert Cushing | Priest | Savannah | USA
 
Thank you for providing a voice for so many of us who feel we have none. For thirty years, I "went to" Mass because not to attend was a mortal sin. Vatican II changed that and I now celebrate a liturgy that I understand, cherish, and enjoy. I am fortunate to be part of a worship community that embraces Vatican II. We celebrate a liturgy that is beautiful, meaningful, respectful, rich, and reverent --all those adjectives Rome endorses. The English language is also rich and reverent , beautiful and meaningful when properly translated. I pray that happens.
Elaine Heinz | Lay Minister | Phoenix | USA
 
One of the unintended consequences of these "clumsy" translations is that many of us who preside will feel pastorally obligated to make our own adaptions to the prayers for the benefit of the Assembly's worship. Thus the new translations will have an effect that is counterproductive to their stated intention (to establish uniformity).
Kenneth Mich | Priest | Milwaukee | USA
 
One complaint of Tridentine Mass lovers that I have often heard is that the liturgical reform efforts of Vatican II were shoved down their throats. I have always felt that Vatican II reforms, vital and right on as they were and are, never did call for uniformity, and with time the Tridentine liturgy lovers found their venues for liturgy. A recognition of "de gustibus non est disputandum." So, let's not repeat the same effort at unifomrity and do a little market testing as Michael Ryan suggests.
Dan Maloney | Lay Person | Chicago | USA
 
"Liturgy is not an option nor merely an obligation, not a bonus, but a need - like food and drink, like sleep and work, like friends. We need to gather, listen, give praise and thanks, and share communion. Otherwise we forget who we are and whose we are and we can have neither the strength nor the joy to be Christ's body - present in the world today" (Joseph Cardinal Bernardin). With due respect, I cannot help but ask the Bishops if they believe the new translations will help or hinder the faithful in fulfilling the true purpose of liturgy expressed here, so theologically and poetically pure, by Cardinal Bernardin.
Mary M Starshak | Lay Minister | St. Paul/Minneapolis | United States of America
 
In visiting the Bishops' internet site on the new 'translation', I was appalled to see a second year Latin student's translation of the original Latin. I do not feel that I can spare the time in energizing myself as a 'pastor' or our congregation as the 'sheep' to accept such a poor English translation for liturgical (public) prayer as a community of believers. The language of our prayer life should reflect the best and finest language blessings which we possess. I'm sorry but I prefer that we stop this train.
Rev. Emil P. Swiatek | Priest | Buffalo, NY | USA
 
Please stop this new translation from happening. So many of the English phrases are awkward and antiquated. I truly fear that people will "vote with their feet," and leave our congregations for greener, more contemporary pastures. I am a professional pastoral musician and strongly object to the proposed changes in the Missal.
Peter J. Morabito | Lay Minister | Cincinnati, OH | USA
 
I have been following this so called change with the upmost disbelief. The Body of Christ - the people in the pew - are seeing their parishes close, are going without the benefit of a priest for the sacraments - most notably the Eucharist and Rome is focusing on offering them prayers that, for the most part, are difficult to pray and difficult to understand. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. We appear to be watching a replay.
Frank Herlihy | Deacon | Albany, NY | United States
 
It only makes sense to use the new translation in select places for a trial period to see how it is received. A translation that everyone finds awkward, impossible to proclaim, and totally foreign to the people of God will not contribute to good liturgy and will cause people to believe the Eucharist has little to do with their daily lives. After waiting this long, to mandate a Sacramentary which is perceived to be unacceptable is to invite widespread abuse.
Robert D. Grosch | Priest | Great Falls-Billings, MT | USA
 
Former priest, extensive theological and liturgical expertise, age 76, friend and contemporary of Bishop Trautman from Innsbruck days: 1) I endorse the move as proposed, but mainly because it might, just might, cause a few more American bishops to understand the ramifications of what is being dictated from Rome. A teaching moment! 2) I do not anticipate that this will accomplish a better outcome for our Eucharistic celebrations. The control-nuts in Rome will not be deterred from their agenda. 3) As with some other recent Roman rules, these new translations may simply be ignored in many parishes and in a few dioceses. The rest of the parishes will suffer. 4) Given what we all now know, the ONLY real solution is to go the NO route. American Bishops should tell Cardinal Arinze in words along these lines: "We alone have the authority, from the highest authority available, to determine the exact language, among other important elements, that will be used in parishes in the US. We have the theological, liturgical, and linguistic expertise to make these decisions. No authorities in Rome have a higher level of competence. No authorities in Rome have the authority to countermand the responsibility we have for our worshipping parishes. We, not Rome, know what is best for our people. Thus, it is our determination that we will inform you of our final decisions regarding texts for worship in the United States. Feel free to offer any commentary. We will take any such under advisement. Meanwhile, we will implement our decisions here in the United States and will keep you informed as we deem appropriate. " 5) Will this be confrontational? Certainly. When does such confrontation became a moral mandate? When the well-being of our worshipping communicites mandates it. Would this be a teaching moment from some in Rome? For sure!
Gerald B Dentinger | Lay Person | Louisville, KY | USA
 
Dear Michael, A very fine essay on the latest madness from Rome. But you are far too easy on the bishops - weary, or sidelined or whatever, they have, in the main, succumbed to the bullying tactics so favoured by John Paul II and now his successor. As lay people who still care about the Church and the way it is being governed, it is time to demand of our bishops that they refuse to allow this latest sad joke into their dioceses. For those who have already decided the Church is well on the way to irrelevance, this will be just one more reason to justify their departure. The hope of the Church it seems to me is with the laity and the good priests and religious still hanging in there!
Richard Flynn | Lay Person | Adelaide | Australia
 
I wish to add that it is the process, as much as the translation itself, that I find so disturbing. Officials appointed by the Vatican were in charge. They have not listened to the voices of the bishops or the voices of the people, and liturgy is "the work of the people." I do not know how people can pray with a translation that has been delivered in such a dominating way, or with a translation that is so terribly flawed. It makes me heart-sick, especially after the joy of the Second Vatican Council.
Gloria Ulterino | Lay Minister | Rochester, NY | USA
 
Vatican II was the breath of Spirit blowing through the Catholic Church. It gave me hope that the Church I was raised in was adjusting to a modern age and bringing an inclusiveness to the Church that was badly needed. I experienced vitality, life, spirit reinvigorating the clergy and the laity. Vatican II was considered too "liberal" by many conservative elements in the Church that wanted the status quo, rather than a responsiveness that opened the Church to a greater participation by the people, those our Priests are ordained to shepherd. I do not believe that this most recent effort to "update" the Roman Missal is in the best interest of the clergy or laity. Many in the Church has made this clear, but I suspect their protests will fall upon deaf ears. I urge the Bishops of the United States to stand up and be heard, to intercede for their flock. I know many in the Church will embrace these changes, but I suspect more will not. I fear for the future of a Church that is regressive rather than opening to the possibilities of the future. I fear for the future of a Church whose appointed leaders are unwilling to stand up and be heard. I fear for the future of our Church. John Beckman
john beckman | Lay Person | San Bernardino | USA
 
I am dismayed by the examples I have read. I belong to one of the oldest parishes in the state. Because of this, we have a very senior but giving congregation. There will be dismay if not an uproar when this is announced. Please study this further. In medicine we follow the dictum "first do no harm". This is a dictum we should all follow. Edward M. Hanton, MD
Dr. Edward Hanton | Lay Person | Minneapolis/St. Paul (MN) | USA
 
It's about time someone begins to speak truth to power. Thank you for your well written critique of the new translation. I hope and pray that your suggestion is taken seriously by the bishops and implemented broadly across the country. If nothing is eventually done to stop this Latin juggernaut, I for one will stand SILENT during the Eucharistic liturgy - and will encourage others to do the same -- or else pray the current version. Again, thank you and may God bless your effort abundantly. My prayer for your success accompanies this comment.
Barry Rankin | Priest | Former Passionist, Chicago, IL | USA
 
NO NO NO!!!!!! I CAN'T go back! It would be like crawling under a rock dark and devoid of the encompassing community experience. My faith is has become so enriched and alive!!!! I'm afraid it would return to the rote nothingness it was before Vatican II.
Martha J. Lemon | Lay Person | Columbus Ohio | USA
 
English can be a beautiful language. Some individuals are wonderfully gifted at brining the language to life - poets, dramatists, writers, philosophers. What a gift English is to reflect the depth of the human heart. English is so rich because it is a living language that continues to evolve with touches from the very young to the very old. Sadly, a handful of people for whom English is a foreign tongue want to reduce it to simply replicating a life experience that existed centuries ago. I prefer to live and speak in a 21st century idiom and enjoy the mystery to be found therein.
Bob Riler | Priest | Seattle | US
 
At last, at last...an opportunity to join together with other faithful Catholics who still love the Church in spite of everything. In this age of scandal and shame, the last thing we need is another wound delivered to the Body of Christ in the cause of liturgical retrenchment.
Catherine A. McKeen | Lay Minister | Rockville Centre | USA
 
"Waiting" on implementation of something so critical and central to our everyday faith life makes perfect sense to me. This clearly requires more study, scholarship, and input from the various parts of the world where English is spoken. One size does NOT fit all, and this new Missal's translation seems to fit no one at all.
John Berger | Priest | Honolulu | USA
 
Somebody should do something. We are the "somebodies".
Roberta Brunner | Lay Person | Phila | USA
 
The mandate to adopt these revisions indicate that the leaders of our Church do not trust that we the faithful know how to pray. We will be directed to use their convoluted language instead of our own vernacular. How could it be that our leaders have strayed so far from their pastoral responsibility? Is it spiritual arrogance? Is it careerism? Is it cowardice? Many thanks to Fr. Ryan for having the courage and wisdom to challenge these revisions, and for giving us a chance to join him. I will be praying for his plea to be heard, and believe me, I will be using plain language, and I have great faith that God will listen.
Catherine Wolff | Lay Minister | Diocese of San Jose | USA
 
I also found the proposed translations to be poorly done. As an individual who works for an international company based in Germany, poor translations are the bane of my working world. I cannot see any justification for the same in my Spiritual world. Please wait, rethink and let the People of God discern.
Robert E. Van Cleef | Lay Person | San Jose of California | United States
 
Ordained in 1955, laicized 1970 - which is why I tried to identify myself as both priest and lay person. I applaud your efforts to introduce the need for that uncommon sense called prudence in relation to the introduction to the new translations. Do it right the first time - it may be the only time.
Anonymous | Lay Person | Sydney | Australia
 
Let the body of Christ be heard.
John McCarthy | Lay Person | Saint John, NB | Canada
 
I am a child of Vatican II. The vernacular mass was introduced when I was about to graduate from high school. I remember weeping with joy the first time I heard the consecration in English. I also trained (not ordained) as a deacon as I went through deaconate training with my husband. I truly love my religion and my parish... I try not to let the "institutional church" get between God and me. However, I believe that the new translation may actually do that! I sermon I heard recently, which has nothing to do with this matter, is now my rallying cry... "GENTLE DEFIANCE"! I completely agree with the author! If waiting is not an option and "gentle defiance" does not work, I believe that I might leave the church that I love so much and that I have given my life to. It is breaking my heart.
Margaret Ellen DuPrey | Lay Person | Columbus, OH | USA
 
As a servant of the Church in the role of pastoral musician for over thirty years I am confounded by the proposed translations I have seen and wounded by the process that is in play. Adopting language that is unclear at best and ugly at worst does violence to our liturgy. Liturgy is art, not formula, and the words we say and sing from our heart need to be true, grace-full and poetic. Only then does the beauty of the liturgy shine through and inspire increased love of God and energy for building the Kingdom on earth. These changes will not become easier over time. They are offensive and divisive, and for good reason. The person in the pew may not be a liturgical expert or an experienced translator but she recognizes nonsense when she hears it. The People of God deserve better than this from you, our leaders.
Mary Pat Graham | Lay Person | Seattle | USA 98275
 
I have had a look at the translations, and they are indeed awkward. While the Tridentine Rite is worthy of deep respect, it is hardly the only way in which the church has worshipped. One of the consequences of the changes will be that an immense volume of music will cease to be useable. While translations can be improved, the action at work here is an overemphasis on literalism. What the translations gain in overweening devotion to the Latin text is more than wiped out by the loss poetry and spirit that could be fostered. Try again, this time with some feeling.
Michael P. Moyer | Lay Person | Seattle | USA
 
This "new" translation will make the church look like a laughing stock! This I don't want to see. My hope is that the church, the people, will rise up and say - "NO".
Brian Mathews | Priest | Port Pirie | Australia
 
I am so sorry to see the efforts to undo the needed reforms started by beloved Pope John 23rd. I pray his spirit will work to keep our church moving in the right direction. I am old and it won't effect my beliefs. The church is losing members and the new translations, pushing the Latin masses, etc. will push people out the door a little faster. Lois J. Hanson
Lois J. Hanson | Lay Person | Sioux City, Ia. | U.S. A.
 
We structure our lived experience of God in the language we speak. A language that does not beat with the heart of that lived experience cannot be said to be the language of love, praise, and worship. Please, let's give these proposed revision more thought, prayer, reflection, and discernment before their implementation.
Gloria Carpeneto | Priest | Baltimore | United States
 
Picture the Lord and His 12 disciples in the upper room at the Last Supper. Now stop and ask: Where did the "precious chalice" come from? It sounds, to my ear, that we have returned to the Middle Ages with its Search for the Holy Grail.
Warren Hyer | Lay Person | Trenton NJ | United States of America
 
What happened to the principle of subsidiarity? How is it that the English speaking countries can't take care of their own liturgy and language. After all, the Anglicans are being invited to come into the Catholic fold and keep their own Book of Common Prayer! Do you have to be from outside the Roman Catholic Tradition to be allowed any freedom of speech and prayer ??
Theresa Padovano | Lay Person | Paterson, NJ | USA
 
Mike, thanks for sticking your neck out! And doing so in such a wsie manner. It should be hard for the bishops to ignore such a sensible suggestion -- but history seems to be against us. I hope for a supportive response but am not optimistic. I don't think they grasp the seriousness of the issue. Blessings.
George B. wilson, S.J. | Priest | Cincinnati | USA
 
I am a lay leader of a Catholic Charismatic community which has official canonical status as a Public Association of the Christian Faithful and also chairperson of the liturgy committee. I have been reading about these changes for awhile and was hoping that the U.S. bishops would reject the changes and send a message to Rome that the bishops of the U.S. are fully capable of implementing any changes in language with out the meddling of Latin scholars who do not have any pastoral experience with the people of their diocese. I guess that didn't happen. I hope that this petition helps to put this entire process on a different level.
Pamela Orlowicz | Lay Minister | Newark | USA
 
I am not only a priest, but also a physician who was very happily married for 37 years. i have been on both sides of the ambo, as one who listened and now as one who does the talking. I speak for myself and I speak for her, believing that the proposed translation is not only sexist,, but it does not represent the language and the thinking of the modern Catholic.
richard j. ward | Priest | Seattle | usa
 
I could not agree more about the translation approved and would like to second the suggestion of Fr. Ryan. I have spent all of my priestly years in higher education (seminary president/rector, university dean, university professor, seminary professor (liturgy and preaching), religious superior, university chaplain, territorial parish pastor, Vicar Forane several times, Council of Priests in five dioceses, director of ongoing formation of the clergy, etc) and find many of the linguistic suggestions more than just a little burdensome. The "wait a year" would give us a chance to find the best way. PL
Patrick L. LaBelle, O.P. | Priest | San Francisco | USA
 
Good luck. I'm afraid the current powers in Rome don't care what "the people" have to say, unless "the people" are the conservative, SSPX-like folks who believe Vatican II was a big mistake.
Jerome Morzinski | Lay Person | Santa Fe | US
 
Fr Ryan is right and unusually courageous. But he is too kind to the bishops. It is they who have betrayed us, and the beautiful vision of Vatican II. This was their battle to fight - and win - behind closed doors, if possible. They should have carried on resisting this folly and challenging the deluded assumptions of those who are driving this 'reform of the reform'. What do they fear, anyway - Rome's tanks on their palace lawns? If they had stood firm - and together - Rome would have had to back down. What hope is there for us when our bishops don't believe in their own authority, nor in their responsibilities to us, their priests and people?
Paul Browne | Priest | Liverpool | UK
 
Hi. I'm a practicing cradle Catholic with 16 yrs parochial education, active in various ministries, trying to keep children and grandchildren "connected" to the Church. A "new" translation of the Roman Missal won't be helpful in that effort, nor in the effort to make returning Catholics feel like they've "come home". With sex scandals, etc. the Church does not need to imply to the world that "old" translations were incorrect. Hmm. Are there other motives? Maybe this is just a printer's or bookseller's dream come true. Hey, why not just reprint the 1957 Maryknoll missal I used in High School and to which I still refer? It'd save you a lot of work.
Sharon Fasnacht | Lay Person | Seattle | USA
 
St. Jerome himself observed that attempting a direct translation into the Latin from his sources led at times to impossible constructions. We're facing the same situation now in insisting on fidelity to the Latin at the cost of good sense, poetic flow and yes, good English.
Thomas J. Helfrich, OSFS | Priest | Lansing | USA
 
In no other known sphere of translation is it ever required, as far as I know, to insist that every word from the original language is included in the translated text. This has given rise to an intrusive text which reads without poetic flow. It is surely possible to be accurate and display literary style at the same time. Texts for translations should surely be: faithful to the original doctrinally sound written for proclamation crafted by wordsmiths/prayersmiths as opposed to simple translators. Surely something could yet be retrieved from the ICEL 1998 texts. I endorse this proposal wholeheartedly.
Tony Rogers | Priest | East Anglia | England
 
As a Catholic with conservative leanings, I have long been appalled by the infelicity, in terms of the American English language, of much of the current translation of the Mass, to the point of absolute grammatical incorrectness let alone stylistic elegance. I was born in 1944 and grew up with the Latin Mass; although I learned Mass Latin as an altar boy and studied Latin for a couple of years in high school, I must take the Church's word that its Latin of that liturgy was good Latin. So be it. What we need is good American English for our Mass in this country, and I fear that what appears to be heading for approval and dissemination will only further the thinning out of those attending Mass and less the prayerful focus of those of us who, perhaps gritting our teeth, continue to do so, thanks to mistaken notions about what is correct. By all means, let's extend this process and involve the people of God for whom the clergy and hierarchy, we are told (if not often shown), are servants, not masters.
Bob Fauteux | Lay Person | Bridgeport (Connecticut) | U.S.
 
I, too, find the coming translation a mess. I have voiced this opinion to my Bishop (Most Rev. Edward Braxton, Diocese of Belleville and member of the BCL) and in so many words been told "this translation is better, it follows the rules of translation laid out by Rome and over time you'll like it. Stop complaining, the bishops and Rome know what we're doing." Nonsense! I never thought I would live to see the liturgy I have loved and fervently sought to make the source and summit of the lives of my parishioners would become something so remote in language from the English our laity and clergy use daily. This "elevated" language, supposedly more religious and more worthy of the liturgy, is in reality off-putting, remote and not how people pray. Yes, we needed to revise and make more poetic the liturgy in English, but this translation is not it. The ICEL translations that were in the works during the 1990s and were shelved because Rome changed the rules in mid-stream were better. I've seen them. Now, how can Rome expect ONE English translation to fit the multiple local/national uses of the language throughout the world? I will loyally catechize and celebrate the translation given us the rest of my life, but grieve the loss of the translation I've celebrated the liturgy in for 28 years. Is it possible there are those (including Benedict XVI) who are pursuing a personal preference for the liturgy over the good of the church and the Sacred Constitution on the Liturgy which they now in their later years might regret having supported in their youth? Are they substituting a shallow "reverence" on the liturgy through externals like language instead of the difficult, long-term work of forming people's hearts and minds in the spirit of the liturgy? I've already had trouble explaining the change in the words of institution to members of my parish. They do not understand how "many" is the same as "all." They say, "But didn't Jesus die for everyone, Father? Many doesn't say that!" I once said I would never be like those priests who resisted and complained about the changes in the liturgy after Vatican II - but now I seem to have become what I swore I would not be. I know the meaning and effect of the liturgy will not change; the actions will still be the same and richly celebrated in my parish. The Christ will still be really present in the bread and wine and the Body of Christ gathered around the altar. "Lex orandi, lex credendi" will still be true. But, I'll have to really, really, really work on making it sound natural and right!
Rev. Joseph C. Rascher | Priest | Belleville, Illinois | USA
 
I served as Director of Liturgy in 2 parishes for the past 23 years, the last for 17. I embraced the documents of Vatican II, lived and breathed them. I am almost glad I recently retired. I do not know how I would do the same with what is in our near-future. I am not sure my heart and soul would be in it. I remember when the USA began to celebrate in the vernacular. I especially remember the joy of my parents, both in their early 60's at that time. They were so thrilled to have the experience and never doubted for one moment the presence of the Holy Spirit in this very new event. I am having a difficult time explaining these translations, and more specifically, the way they came about to my grown children, who in turn will explain to my grand-children. At some point, I don't think all will buy it. I know I don't. Then the question becomes: where shall I go? I pray that many lay women and men will take notice and will react. Is it Rome's way of "getting even" to the English speaking (and specifically, American) church that questioning the abuse scandal was out of line and they WILL bring us right? There is so much more to say.... Thank you for providing this venue
Rosemary R. Morse | Lay Person | Philadelphia | USA
 
Let's wait, do the research and produce something that we will be proud of.
Bernie Zajdel | Religious | St. Paul Minneapolis | U.S.
 
I am a retired Professor of English. There is a strong consensus among authorities on the English language that Anglo-Saxon words are generally preferable to Latinate words. "Green" rather than "verdant" is the illustration of the moment. This is demonstrated from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Hopkins to Seamus Heaney. The rejection of ICEL's sound principles for an ignorant notion in the Vatican that Latinate words and phrasing deserved preference was an exercise in mindless arrogance doomed to failure. The early report of a committee with members whose command of English was poor could only horrify anyone with sense. Now we see an embarrassing result. For God's sake, literally, back off and let people who know and love the English language bring their skills to bear. Does Rome have no appreciation for the meaning of its vaunted commitment to "subsidiary function"? Must its corruption of absolute power extend even to language?
William H. Slavick | Lay Person | Portland, ME | USA
 
I have written personally to several bishops with concerns about the new translations. Several clergy commented positively on the theological insights of my letter. However, the general response from bishops was that 'the train has left the station'. I wondered why laypeople were not consulted with regard to the process. I have also written directly to the pope with regard to 5 specific texts. Copies of both letters are available privately.
Colin LaVergne | Lay Minister | St. Paul-Minneapolis | USA
 
I am old enough to remember the agony of the original Vatican II renewal for many, but we have grown as a Church since then. Catholics across America know these prayers, are comfortable with the responses, and will gasp at having to learn new, almost unintelligible language in the new century. It is imperative that we listen to many more voices before this becomes a liturgical nightmare. Please wait for changes and reconsider.
Sr. Rita M. Yeasted | Religious | Pittsburgh | USA
 
I have heard the so called "White Book" draft translation used and I don't think they have anything going for them. The first time I heard the Roman Canon, I found myself distracted, constantly asking myself "What did he just say?". I fear that this new translation will be the death of EP1 which I don't think is the intention of the translators.
Henry Balkwill | Lay Minister | Diocese of Leeds | United Kingdom
 
We, all of us, are the Body of Christ. Let us discern and pray over the liturgy together. Let us, the Church, use our minds, our hearts, and our souls to discern changes--not have them mandated. As God's children, we have different needs, different languages, different styles, but we have the same God. Let us pray, then talk. And then decide.
Anonymous | Lay Person | Seattle | USA
 
We need to hold off on what I feel will turn out to be very controversial translation of the Roman Missal. The texts we use for the Rites of our Sacramental Life should be of the highest quality. From what has been proposed and approved, this is not the case. It is not too late to step back and rethink the translations that have gone to Rome. Jude Verley, osc
Father Jude Verley, osc | Religious | Saint Cloud, MN | United States
 
I know and respect Fr. Mike Ryan and I salute his courage and willingness to address this issue. There is a saying that "rigidity and the Spirit don't go together". The rigidness and the attempt of many bishops to revive the past is a tragedy in the making. They do not believe that the "Spirit blows where it wills" nor do they believe or, more important, experience that the Spirit of God lives and dwells in the heart of all the people. "You have eyes to see but do not see. You have ears to hear but do not hear". Thank you Fr. Mike for at least asking them to hear and listen to all the People of God.
Jim Burns | Lay Person | Seattle, Wa | USA
 
After repeated attempts to ask our US bishops to be considerate of the prayer and liturgical life of our country, I welcome this opportunity to request a timely and wise plan for the Church. Thank you
Tom Wojtowick | Lay Minister | Great Falls-Billings | USA
 
Please send this "translation" to the trash bin and replenish ICEL with true liturgists, artists, musicians and poets so as to breathe into the English translation of the Latin texts a sacramentary worthy of our worship of God as a full and participatory Body of Christ.
Tom Kilian | Deacon | Ogdensburg | USA
 
I have already expressed my concerns to my Bishop, Howard Hubbard, and to Bishop Trautman. I hold a degree from the University of Notre Dame in Pastoral Liturgy. I am most concerned about the changes in the ordinary parts of the Mass, the parts almost all of our people know by heart (especially the Gloria and the Creed). The most egregious flaws in the new translation border on the heretical (e.g. "blood which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins"; "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to people of good will"). I the opportunity to join others in a creative response to this difficult situation. Even though it may seem small, the truth of the ancient saying, "lex orandi, lex credendi" still holds. We do not have a right to undermine the very faith of the people we were commissioned to care for.
Peter Chepaitis, OFM | Priest | Albany | USA
 
There were trials with the Rite of Concelebration back in the 60's:why not with the new translations that will affect us all for years to come? Also the early document on music in the liturgy said that good celebrations foster and strengthen faith, poor celebration weaken and destroy faith. Can we take the risk that faulty and stiff translations of our entire Eucharistic Liturgy may weaken the faith of our people?
Malcolm Cornwell,C.P. | Priest | Passionist living in Scranton, Pa | USA
 
Thank you for courageous action. Being powerless only leads to cold anger and apathy. We have enough of that. Time for hope and courage, a gift of the Spirit.
Msgr. William J. Hitpas | Priest | Belleville | USA
 
As a composer of music for the church for thirty-seven years I am finding the new translations (especially the Gloria): a) lacking in resonance and beauty b) often awkward in syntax and especially b) rhythmically so leaden and prosaic that it is extremely difficult to find a beautiful melodic line to underscore the meaning.
Christopher Walker | Lay Minister | Los Angeles | USA
 
The people in the pews have become a People of God, a true community worshipping at Liturgy with the existing translation, the work of liturgists, scripture scholars and linguists. Why would the Bishops' Committee consider undoing this translation, accepted and valued, for one that is awkward, untested in the pews and harks back to a time when the Church was viewed as triumphant and not as now, a pilgrim Church seeking to serve God and one another in a language familiar and dear to them. Please consider the faith of the people, many of whom will be sorely tested and disturbed by this new, albeit archaic, translation.
Mary McDonald | Lay Person | New York Archdiocese | USA
 
These translations may well be accurate but they are quite simply awful. How different it could have been in the translations and original texts of the 'unreformed' ICEL had been given a chance.
Anonymous | Priest | Leeds | England
 
As we seek to give thanks to God 'with our full voice', we need also to promote worship in the best of our language. What we say in prayer needs to be in the best of English, not in stilted or stylistically limited English as 'dictated' by an earlier version of the same prayer. Please God we can truly do this. The Word became Flesh. Our brains, heart and flesh need to become words, and do so with the kind of beauty and poetry we require from the designers of liturgical vestments and the composers of sacred music.
Thomas McCarthy | Religious | Kildare & Leighlin | Ireland
 
Sadly the hurried translation of the Roman Rite according to the flawed principles of the document Liturgicum Authenticum (which seems to have been promulgated in the twilight years of the Wojtyla papacy) has delivered us an embarrassing translation. My own Archbishop, George Pell, has been right at the front of the ideological battle lines, heading the oxymoronic body Vox Clara. There is nothing clear or transparent about the workings of Vox Clara or the revamped ICEL Even the small changes suggested by the bishops have been completely ignored by Rome; such is Rome's disdain for collegiality and subsidiarity.
Elias Nasser | Lay Person | Sydney | Australia
 
The new translation is a travesty of the English language. Its numerous grammatical errors and arcane and inappropriate word usage are an insult to English speaking Catholics. It does the Latin original no service while robbing the existing English translation of its expressive and reverent simplicity.
Phoebe Basson | Lay Minister | Sydney | Australia
 
It is not helped by the chairman of ICEL being an English bishop but the bishops seem oblivious to the awfulness of the translation. They have also been very reluctant to make public the drafts and have no idea of the anger and confusion that will result if it is finally implemented.
John Southworth | Priest | Liverpool | England
 
I believe this is a needed step in our lives as Church. To remain silent is a cooperation in the ongoing dismantling of ordinary magisterial teaching of Vatican II. The teaching documents, dogmatic constitutions are not a list of pious devotional suggestions for one's whim and fancy. With their publication these became a part of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church. The ignorance of and disregard for these documents is scandalous, I congratulate Fr Ryan for his article and courage.
Gerald Ragis | Priest | Burlington | USA
 
Please wait to publish the new missal. Please allow people who are gifted writers to read it and to make suggestions. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain in this venture. May God bless you and open your heart as you pray over this suggestion.
Dianne Marie Teresa Whelan Falk | Lay Person | Archdiocese of Seattle | USA
 
In my church there will be no "I believe".
Brian F Egan | Priest | Sydney | Australia
 
Waiting never hurt the cause of anything true and beautiful. Let the waiting begin.
Stephen M. Gira, C.R. | Priest | Belleville, IL | USA
 
As an English teacher I find the new translation awkward. If one of my students wrote this, I would highly recommend a rewrite. The translators need as their mantra KISS: keep it simple stupid. Perhaps stupid is too harsh.
joseph Giannelli | Lay Person | Newark, NJ | USA
 
Having read some of the new translations, which actually seem to be old translations, I heartily join those who oppose this movement to undo the grace of Vatican II. As a "person in the pews," I find the current translation clear, reverent, and consonant with my understanding of the Eucharist as a sacred meal binding our community together with Christ. I spent the first 24 years of my life with the Tridentine liturgy and the next 44 years joyfully participating in words that were truly my own language, spoken from the heart.
Aileen Giannelli | Lay Person | Newark, NJ | USA
 
I am profoundly concerned for two reasons: this appalling translation is totally unsuitable for prayer. Secondly, it has been imposed on English-speaking Catholics in a completely unaccountable way without even an attempt to consult the church community.
Paul Collins | Lay Person | Canberra-Goulburn | Australia
 
If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Confessions were going well and many people celebrated this Sacrament, that is until Rome and the USCCB decided on a new version which included face to face. The results .... Father has plenty of time to prepare his homily, pray, take a snooze ....Why, no one is coming. They hate the new form. So too with the so called better and more perfect translations which are for the birds. Again, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Leave well enough alone. When will the bishops and Vatican learn to follow the voice of the people.
Ronald Gronowski | Priest | Gaylord | USA
 
If the Pope has established a special vicariate for Anglicans wishing to keep their traditional liurgy, should he not also do the same for Catholics wishing to retain the liturgy approved by Vatican II?
John Flanagan | Lay Person | Wollongong | Australia
 
During these turbulent times, going to Mass gives me strength and peace. We haven't gotten completely over the Priests scandals. I am just now seeing a strength and pride again for Catholics. To make changes, like the examples shown in Fr. Ryan's article in the American magazine...I see frustration, confusion and exasperation ahead. Please don't add another disruption, especially if it's at all unnecessary. God Bless,
Jeanne Holloway | Lay Person | Jefferson City | USA
 
Thank you Mike for your leadership. This is the kind of "year of the priest' celebration that I can get really excited about!
Carol Guenther | Lay Minister | Seattle | USA
 
Thank you, Father Ryan, for your respectful suggestion. It's so easy to give up and say, "What does it really matter?" But it does matter. Blessings on this project.
Mary Gene Devlin | Lay Person | Springfield, Massachusetts | United States
 
I am opposed to the new translation for many reasons. I cannot understand why we have to change the language of the liturgy now that everyone has become comfortable. It has only been 45 years since Vatican II! Little was changed in the liturgy for almost 500 years previous to Vatican II. If we are going to change anything, I think that the prayers should be more inclusive, and we should use the New Revised Standard Version of the scriptures- it is much better for public proclamation.
Father Reggie Urban | Priest | Dodge City, Kansas | USA
 
What you stated in your writing in "America" I've said many times in homilies and other preaching during recent years, not as elegantly as you did in your "America" piece. In my English-language version of the liturgy of the hours (which I pray not only auf Englisch but also in altin & Spanish) I have crossed out numerous words and phrases and printed in more accurate translations that people of 2009 A.D. understand here in the U.S.A. I printed Bishop Trautman's speech at C.U.A. some weeks ago and gave that to a number of people. Our U.S.A. version of "Liturgia Horarum" needs sorely a decent translation into current American English. Adelante!
Anonymous | Priest | amarillo, tx | U.S.A.
 
We MUST consult! We must not presume to know how the proposed changes will be received by the people. 'Law' is to serve the people, not vice versa. So let's talk to the people ... real people ... and many of them, if changes are deemed necessary. Let's not just talk to officially appointed reps of the people who might go to Rome in some presumably representative delegation. No, let's talk with and listen to the couple struggling with the rent or the newcomer waiting for the visa. Let's talk with and listen to the broad sweep of ordinary young people who often we claim at least with our words will carry the Church to the next generations. Let's get on with promoting the ways in which we are bringing the Gospel alive in the world ... and if the more in-house things need adjustment, take time to make sure they are going to encourage our people to bring the Gospel MORE alive in the world. First things first!
Paul Roberts | Priest | Parramatta | Australia
 
We have just been denied communion services during the week. Let's at least have a good liturgy when we can have one.
Kathy O'Brien | Lay Minister | Little Rock | USA
 
Excellent proposal, because it takes seriously the most important insight of the Council: collegiality. We need to encourage our Bishops to take a stronger stand on this fundamental principle. It has been too often disregarded by the Vatican in its relationship with Episcopal Conferences, as well as by many Bishops and priests in their own dioceses and parishes. This abuse of power lies behind most of the scandals in recent years in our Church. Here is an opportunity to take a stand on an important issue affecting every level of the Church.
Gerry Iverson | Priest | Parramatta | Australia
 
The closing words of the 1983 Code of Canon Law seem to have been ignored in the preparation process of the new Vox Clara translations; CURA ANIMARUM LEX SUPREMA EST! (The care of souls is the supreme law).
Craig B. McKee | Lay Person | Hong Kong | Hong Kong
 
When I was a server in grade school, one of our priests could say daily Mass in Latin in 14 minutes. It wasn't very meaningful, but it met the requirements. As an adult, I was pleased when the current Mass was introduced. Since I am now retired, I attend Mass daily and am able to appreciate the marvelous concepts expressed in the liturgy. I feel that any proposed changes should be evaluated very carefully before any implementation. We don't need change for the sake of change.
Richard L. Partington | Lay Person | Seattle | Washington
 
The Vatican II Document Church in the Modern World states that the people have a right to participate in decisions which are going to affect them. There was no consultation of the laity for these changes. It seems that centrality, which is presently very strong in the church, has never been more evident that it is in the present church.
Doug Roach | Religious | Venice, FL | USA
 
During this past summer, some confreres from South Africa visited us and shared with us the disaster that took place in their country with the "New English Translation". They said that it was so bad that they stopped implementing it. I am in agreement with St. Jerome and Pope Paul VI , viz, that we don't translate word for word but idea for idea. As a former Spanish teacher, I have experienced the wisdom of Paul VI and St. Jerome.
Rev. Dr. William F. Walsh, osfs | Priest | Raleigh, NC | USA
 
The enormity of this absurdity of the Vatican and its agencies rivals that of the Spanish bishops on the eve of the Spanish Civil War who issued an encyclical on the length of women's skirts.
A. J. Lowes | Priest | Adelaide | Australia
 
Vatican II opened the windows and allowed so many people who had not had Latin language studies in school, indeed, many had not finished school because of things like WWII , to actually understand what was happening in their Church. I was young and in college, irate about the changes until I went home and my parents said how much more they enjoyed the Mass now because it was in their language. Now it seems the Church hierarchy are trying to separate themselves from the laity once again. Some of these changes are trivial and stupid. Why not get to work on more substantial problems in the Church? Need I list them? There is not enough space to list them here.
Marjorie A Sebesta | Lay Minister | Seattle | USA
 
In a church which claims to work on a communio model there is a need to conversation among all who are affected. To impose even something good is to undermine the good.
Gregory Burke | Priest | Wollongong | Australia
 
The first rule of pastoral theology is "thou shall not confuse the people of God" implementing these changes will not only confuse the faithful but is yet another example of the hierarchy acting out their authority rather than truly leading in the people of God into deeper understanding of the faith.
Joseph Carver, SJ | Priest | Seattle | USA
 
I became lay music minister in high school in 1966, when the liturgical changes first took hold of our minds and hearts. My generation created the pastoral positions that exist today; we trail blazed and saw the fruit of our labors, a really work of love. Forty two years later, I've witnessed the Spirit of God at work in the people of God within my own pastoral ministry, particularly in young people, who have embraced the work of the Renewal and found their own passion ignited by their own pastoral involvement. This was the hope of the Council and the work of the Spirit. I must say that lately, for the first time in all these years, my own confidence in the Church is waning. Waiting, listening to the people of God and dialoging about these newest changes seems to be the most hopeful suggestion that I've heard in a long time, and I fully support the endeavor.
Denise Morency Gannon | Lay Minister | Fall River | USA
 
If the New Sacramentary is promulgated, any presider sensitive to issues of gender, justice and just plain proclaimable English will have to edit it extensively from the first day of its use. We should not say "wait." We should say "pastorally unusable; return to sender."
Allan Bouley, OSB | Priest | St. Cloud | United States
 
I'm a 28 year old practicing Catholic and just read about these changes. Why is it necessary? Does the God who gave up his only son and had him born in an old animal feeding trough, really care if we are saying the right words? I think it's more important that the intention is there, rather than the syntax.
Michael Wolf | Lay Person | Peoria | USA
 
I've been a deacon for 35 years, if not for Vatican II I would not be a catholic let alone a ordained minister of the church. Fr. Ryan is absolutely correct. I've been saying for a number of years now that Vatican II is being (has been) destroyed by the powers that be. John XXIII said often that we need to listen to one another, the last 25 years however have shut down any dialog on any issues effecting the church. I'm just grateful that I've had the time that I've had, I'm aware that I am a dinosaur and my time has run out. However, I will not fade away as some would like, I chose to stand up for what I know to be right. I am proud to join Fr. Ryan in this Just Wait campaign even knowing it's doomed to failure.
Bernard R. Filzen | Deacon | Phoenix, AZ | U.S.A.
 
We in South Africa have experienced the new translation, and most people who have articulated their responses have been firmly against it. The translation seems deliberately to move away from good current English usage towards an unnatural (and to many people puzzling or incomprehensible) latinate mode of expression. Something has gone seriously wrong. For the Catholic Church to run the risk of turning people away from Mass at this stage in its history seems mad.
Colin and Mary Gardner | Lay Person | Durban | South Africa
 
I completely agree with your reflective comments. Every time I have heard discussion of the proposed new translation, I have seen everything from laughter, to eyes rolling, to indifference. Comments such as, "When will the bishops take on real issues at their meetings?" are common. We cannot re-translate the tragic history of clergy sexual abuse by re-translating the language of the liturgy. What a sad waste of time and money.
Fran Ferder, fspa, Ph.d. | Religious | Portland | USA
 
Thank you! For the past three years I have felt that with each change the Vatican has brought forth, they are placing their hands on my shoulders to push me out the door. Each time, I've tried to find peace with the change, noting the my relationship with God can never be touched by such institutional issues, but yet....But yet mass is being transformed more from a journey into our deepest mystery to a magic show, where, if one word or action or person is out of place, it won't work. And, of course, there is the framework for high school curriculum that's being pushed upon us, in spite of its being incredibly obtuse, repetitive and unappealing to teens. And how can we overlook the investigation of our nuns while the priests and bishops who allowed sexual abuse to exist for years are being celebrated in the year of the priest. Oh, how my heart aches, especially as I watch my adult children turn from my beloved spiritual home, providing one dreadful, but true, reason after another for dismissing the Catholic Church as an out-of-touch, self-serving hierarchy, more focused on maintaining proper club membership than bringing Christ to the world.
Denise Davis | Lay Minister | Louisville, KY | USA
 
I was in Rome for all four years of the Council. I came home elated by what I had witnessed, and eager to be a part of the Council's implementation. Now I, and many of my classmates, feel that the vision of Vatican II has been betrayed. We are going back to 1950, to the authoritarian regime that was the Church when I was a child. And I, for one, am not going along for this tragic ride.
Fr. Bill Burke | Priest | Chicago | USA
 
While I knew that some of the translations in the current Sacramentary were far too distant from the Latin original, they at least were generally prayerful and reasonably poetic. I have not read the translations of the Roman Missal, but the samples I've read leave me very concerned. Those of us in pastoral ministries, as well as the lay faithful of our parishes, should be allowed a consultative voice in this important matter of our worship.
William G. Menzel | Priest | La Crosse | USA
 
May I commend Fr Ryan for saying what so many of us feel. I returned to the Church after a long absence and rejoiced to see what had happened because of Vatican II. I love the present liturgy and look back to the Latin Masses of my childhood with respect but no regret for their passing. I must agree with Fr Ryan that it seems symptomatic of the last few years' attempts to turn the clock back. I am glad that this website calls on English speaking Catholics throughout the world for support rather than only in the United States since there does not, as yet, seem to be a similar call for restraint here in Scotland. It may come but my fear is that it will be too late.
Jess Mitchell | Lay Person | St Andrews and Edinburgh | Scotland, UK
 
I will send this article and statement to as many friends, both clergy and lay, as I can think of. Good Lord, I hope this works. I lay awake some nights thinking about what a disaster this is going to be.
Robert F. Schramm, OSFS | Priest | Lansing | USA
 
Mass prayed in the vernacular does not mean Mass "read" in a strictly translated English version of Latin. Please wait!!!
Charles D. Walker | Priest | Louisville | USA
 
I am no Latin scholar, but I have had enough experience and learning in both Latin and several modern languages to know a good translation and a bad one. I heartily agree with Fr. Ryan that this is a bad translation. Merely shifting a Latin word into English for is not translation. Taking "consubstantialem" and dropping the Latin ending to make "consubstantial" does not translate the word or the meaning. Even educated Catholic Christians do not use the word "consubstantial" in spoken language. Its begs for definition. If the words we speak in liturgy are meant to move mind, heart, and spirit they must be readily recognizable to the people who are speaking them. There was great wisdom in choosing "one in being with the Father" because it made sense. How would it be if we stopped saying "for ever and ever" and went to "for ages of ages" because it is a more literal translation?
Michael Sarra | Deacon | Toledo | USA
 
I'm all for accurate translations, but these are so poorly constructed that they remind me of the kind of translations that made my college Latin teacher yell at us. "You just reading it word for word! You are not *translating*!" We deserve grace and beauty in the words of the liturgy, not laughable constructions that will haunt us for generations.
Catherine Crino | Lay Minister | Chicago | USA
 
As Music Director, I feel that the congregations could gradually adapt to new translations in their SUNG parts, if we could introduce them slowly, rather than all together. Adapting to SPOKEN parts (e.g., the Creed) will be much more difficult, because many are reciting these from rote memory. (Imagine if we were to try to change the Lord's Prayer translation).... The REAL problem will be with presiders, who will find their texts nearly impossible to proclaim, especially the propers.
John Igoe | Lay Minister | Baltimore | USA
 
Thank you for your letter. I feel that 95% of the parishioners in our parish..(OLSS Terrigal. N.S.W.Australia) would not have the slightest idea of what this new translation is about, and perhaps if it were not brought to their attention, would calmly accept it without thought or murmur. So many Catholics are still in the mode of 'yes Father 'no Father,' and whatever the church says is sacrosanct. This is so sad , as to me their faith could belong to somebody else, and not to themselves . So to present this change in the translation to some for their perusal , and to have a programme for discussion ,could awaken a Faith that may be dormant. How wonderful that would be!
Bernadette Introna | Lay Minister | Diocese of Broken Bay .....Sydney N.S.W | Australia
 
This ghastly translation needs to be stopped. However, in my diocesan role I cannot afford to be seen to be a rebel ─ hence the request for anonymity. I am working away on a number of forums and blogs to promote the ICEL 1998 Missal as the way to go.
Anonymous | Lay Minister | Portsmouth | England
 
AMEN!!!! Let our voices be heard so that we still have a church left for our children to inherit.
Diane Capasso | Lay Minister | Bridgeport, CT | USA
 
Since the Pope wants to bring Anglicans into the Church and let them use their liturgy, perhaps we will be able to use their prayers when we want some clairity and inspiration.
Bill Sifferle | Lay Person | Portland | USA
 
Having worked on the ICEL revision and now the new translation, it has been a sad experience of seeing the loss of collegiality and principled decision making - as Mons Harbet in his recent Collegeville presentation acknowledged that they had to make changes to please the loudest voices: not a very principled process. So I support the proposal to wait and test-drive the proposed texts, and then evaluate them openingly. Why have the people of God be banned access to these texts over the past five years?
Anonymous | Religious | Broken Bay | Australia
 
Finally, Fr. Ryan ( rather courageously) said what I have been feeling. I too attended a seminar for priests to learn about the translations and came away simply dreading having to move backwards into a strange language from another language and time.
John A. Coleman S.J. | Priest | San Francisco | United States of America
 
To tell the truth, I'm speechless...........
Roseann Farnstrom | Lay Minister | Detroit | USA
 
I believe that there is no excuse--no matter how pure the Latin or clear the theology--to publish for the faithful a text so rife with ugliness and lacking in grace. The words, which express the redemptive act of the Word made flesh, should be both elegant and correct English--both of which are lacking in the proposed translation. This is not an issue of discipline (or ought not to be), but is an issue of faithful evangelization and true incarnation of the VCII. Poets, liturgists for whom English is a first language, and theologians should be employed to draft a better text--and pastors (actual working pastors) and lay persons should be part of the conversation. I pray that there might be grace enough to do this, but fear that only the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit (who opened the windows for Blessed John XXIII) will be able to move those who are making more of a political than liturgical decision in propounding this document.
Rev. John D. Whitney, SJ | Priest | Archdiocese of Seattle | USA
 
I pray some leadership will emerge from this endeavor. God knows we need some leadership. I am aghast at how easily we in the Catholic Church are allowing ourselves to go back on the promise of Vatican II and watch all the hard-won strides we've made over 40 years dismantled before our eyes.. "Come Holy Spirit! bring back the fire of renewal upon your people!"
Roland P. Cote | Priest | Manchester | U.S.A.