12Nov New Mass translation disliked by US priests and laypeople

The December U.S. Catholic looks at the new missal’s first year in “Words Fail Us.” It’s a rather devastating critique of the whole thing. Their online survey was completed by 1,231 priests and 1,208 laypeople.
Just 58% of the priests checked: “I dislike the new translations and still can’t believe I’ll have to use them for the foreseeable future.” Only four per cent say: “I was unsure about it at first, but I’ve grown accustomed to the new translations.” Only nine per cent say “I personally enjoy the new translations as much as, if not more than, the old version.”
See full report by Anthony Ruff here

2 Responses

  1. Jane Reilly

    This is an incredible survey.
    As a lay person I was more interested in the findings that only 21% of laity agree that the new translation has had a positive effect on their prayer and participation while 70% disagree.
    Also 25% of laity know people who have left to worship elsewhere because of the missal change.
    And 54% of laity wish we could go back to the old translation.
    As one of the 54% of laity who wish we could go back to the old translation I wonder is there any way we can have a certain Sunday each month in which the old missal could be used?
    If we can have this for the latin mass why not the old missal?
    And as many people only go once a month or so to mass anyway now they could be informed when this would be on. Attending a Mass in which you could truly understand, participate and pray once a month would surely be more enriching that doing as we do now.
    I think priests and bishops need to consider those of us who have been left unable to comprehend, not to mind pray anymore as we attend our weekly Eucharist.
    I have always felt disappointed that the new missal was accepted by priests- even when they and we know, it is damaging our experience of mass.

  2. Eamonn Breslin C.Ss.R

    I agree completely with the 58% who dislike the new translation. My contention is that it is no longer a vernacular but a ‘latinized English’, full of subordinate clauses and contorted syntax and therefore quite unsuited to public prayer. The ‘translators’ seem to have done their work on paper without regard to the fact that these are public liturgical prayers to be prayed aloud. They used their eyes but not their ears! I could give many examples but space is limited. To sum up, I believe this new ‘translation’to have been a big mistake, liturgically and pastorally.