Anonymous said:
Was 'tank' bishop's name 'Thomas'?
Wendy said:
I struggled for a long time then decided I would henceforth be silent at Mass. I keep my mouth firmly shut, much to the private delight of the PP who hates the new translation with a vengeance but feels powerless to do anything. After the first few miserable weeks I found it easy to silently respond in my mind with the old responses. There are many many people in my parish who feel the same. Peoples' attitudes range from cynicism to amusement to outright disgust
DeeJay said:
You are talking sense. The vast majority of people are absolutely appalled by the "new translation" and see it as unbecoming of the Eucharistic Celebration.
Many agree with Father Reese, a former editor of the Jesuit review America, who questioned the Vatican decision to use the virtually defunct Latin version as the basis of the new text, calling the result terrible, clunky, mechanical and wooden and with Rev. Sean McDonagh, a leader of an Irish group, the Association of Catholic Priests, who said: I know people are not going to use it. I wouldnt use it, because everything I know in terms of theology and anthropology and linguistics; it breaches every one of those.
This says it all:
Rev. Anthony Ruff, a Benedictine monk and a professor of liturgy at St. Johns University in Minnesota, wrote an open letter to the American bishops saying he was cancelling his engagements to speak in eight dioceses at sessions designed to familiarize priests with the new missal, because he could not in good conscience support it.
tony said:
It would be great to be able to read some intelligent and rational discussion.
Name calling indicates you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the discussion - so what's your point people?
Where is Jesus in this????

John W (mod) said:

Hello there folks. Many thanks for your comments. I'm a little bit concerned that this comment box is generating more heat than light. I'd be grateful if commments could please be a bit more ....Christian? Otherwise I'll have to delete them. God bless you all for taking the time to post your comments
Stephen K said:
The issue of the new translation is clearly not a simple storm-in-a-teacup. There are avid ideological partisans on both sides of the attitudinal divide, just as there were in the controversies over a single word - filioque - and over a single letter - homo(i)ousion, and as there would have been, no doubt, closer to our time, when in the Anglican Church the Book of Common Prayer was replaced with a modernised Prayer Book. There are both criteria of language and theology on which serious reaction may be based.
 My guess is those many Catholics who had already ceased attending Mass wouldnt appreciate the differences and dont have an opinion on the translation at all, and those who have since ceased - in the last year - to attend, will have largely done so for other reasons. I think this because I think it takes a lot for religious people to make a dramatic decision like ceasing to attend religious service, and a few words here and there just do not seem to be such a cause, for most people. I myself havent heard anyone on the ground either complain about or extol the new translation and I conclude that many people who continue to attend Mass are just passively accepting whatever is dished up to them, as they mostly always have done.

This isnt to suggest one shouldnt have a reaction, or that there are not significant implications behind the use of the previous or the new translations, just that many Mass-goers may not be conscious or articulate about them. Though I prefer the previous to the new for reasons I have previously expressed, in the end, for me it is not an issue over which I would abandon Mass-attendance altogether