RSS Feed

New Roman Missal Discussion

Hello surfers, In April, 2001, I was reading a blog post from Fr. Green about how Catholic worship has its roots in Scripture. I originally posted this blog back then, and I am updating it now that the 3rd Edition Missal has officially launched. I have more background information on the translation in a follow up blog post.

Fr. Green seems like a good guy. Once you read his blog post you will get the feeling that parishioners were coming up to him to ask questions and provide comments about the new Roman Missal. I hope that they still are asking questions. He felt that the people in the pews were getting conflicting messages. Fr. Green did not elaborate on those conflicting messages, but I am hoping to use this blog post to make the waters a little more muddy.

Why don’t we tell the Bishops that we are not interested in this new Roman Missal? We still can do that. I have heard only complaints from the pews about making this change. All the people I heard from are confused about why the Bishops are just changing a few words, and for new words that mean the same as the old words. The Church in the pews want to know who cares about these seemingly insignificant changes and why the Bishops feel the need to just change a couple of words. I can tell you that the Bishops do care, and they are probably the only ones.

Fr. Green stated:

“The translation we have been using up to now [in the current Roman Missal] followed a certain method of translation that often yielded somewhat simplified and altered texts. One of the results was that the references to Sacred Scripture sometimes are obscured.”

What Fr. Green did not tell you is that those words were chosen purposefully during Vatican II. The Church leaders had the same latin texts then as they do now. Why do the Bishops feel that there needs to be a change? We get the notion that the word changes better reflect the actual words used in the Latin, but the people in the pews don’t care about that. Why do the Bishops care?

There have been a select few who have been crabbing about the Vatican II changes for over 40 years. In my parish we now have a Latin mass on Sunday that was sanctioned by the Church hierarchy (Bishops). This is a conflicting message to the progressive minded Catholic Church in the pews. Are we to believe that the mass said in Latin is using the same Roman Missal with only the words in Latin? This is not the case.

In my last blog post I was fairly harsh on the Bishops. They adopted a language for the new Roman Missal that, in my opinion, was a condemnation of the progressive minded Catholics. Progressive leaders within the hierarchy of the Church can only speak harshly of the Bishops if they want to be reprimanded. If you would like to read more about this I found a discussion on Facebook. For more scholarly folks I would like to point you to a journal article from 1993.

To better understand the Bishops position I would like to point to the Papal Encyclical Quanta Cura. This is what I like the call “the Bishops know better” encyclical.

From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,”2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;”3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”4
Quanta Cura

These sentiments that the “Bishops know better” were reiterated by the current Pope, while Cardinal, under the title of dictatorship of relativism.

Changing the Missal is not bringing the people in the pews closer to God. The Bishops have a motive that revolves around taking back things they feel they lost in Vatican II. We should not let them make these changes without an earful of complaints. The Bishops need to move us forward, not be rear-facing, and we can stand firm in our resolve. History will bear us out. Use Father John Courtney Murray, SJ as your example. Don’t know him? Start here.


About neodecaussade

I am a Roman Catholic quester. You will find that I have scripture based academic interests. You will discover that I am a conservative Catholic but I am also prone to heterodox tendencies. I am versed in highly pietistic traditionalist practices but I am not a traditionalist. I am interested in entering a discussion on the future of the Roman Catholic Church. I would like to have a role in discussing how the future Church will be shaped.

3 responses »

  1. There are a huge number of problems with the translation, I feel. Just picking two out: that word ‘consubstantial’ and the change in the words of consecration to ‘for many’.

    It is one thing to to say I believe in God and Jesus Christ, and quite another to say I believe in Aristotelian philosophy. As far as I am aware, that word has no meaning outside the idea of ‘substance’ in the version of Aristotle used by Thomas Aquinus, but unfortunately Aristotle’s philosophy has been as superceded by further thinkers as his model of the Universe (which was used by Ptolomy and overthrown by Galileo etc) or his model of medicine, which has been overthrown by virtually every medical practitioner since the enlightenment.

    Now Aquinus was a smart fellow, so I do not believe for one instant he believed in, for example, Transubstanciation (also dependant of Mr A) in the sense the church suggests. I am pretty sure his view would have been that what happens during consecration is beyond human understanding, but a feeble human idea that gives us some insight into what happens is to use A’s concepts of substance. That’s very different from a claim that Transubstanciation is what happens, because IF you could prove T did not happen, the second approach would imply nothing happened at consecration, whereas I am convinced St Thomas would say it was because our analogy had broken down.

    As to the ‘for many’ business, that was a major row in around 1600 which came to a head when the Pope of the time declared it a heresy to say Christ did not die for all and the word ‘multos’ was to be understood as meaning that Christ died for all men, but also that men had the free will to reject that sacrifice. As a result of a somewhat ignorant instance on accuracy to the Latin (which is of course itself a translation of the Greek so subject to translation issues) whe are forced into an idiotic position of insisting that we through out the ‘all’ because it is less accurate than ‘many’ but it is to be understood as meaning is ‘all’. Gibberish, I’m afraid.

  2. Some times its a pain in the ass to read what blog owners wrote but this site is really user friendly ! .

  3. very good submit, i actually love this web site, keep on it


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: