"I believe that the new translations are a step backwards..."

"...  and confusing to the people in the pews." That comes from Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., whose commitment to the AmChurch and talent for dispensing ridiculous sound bites to major newspapers should not be doubted, or questioned in any fashion or form whatsoever:

The Father Reese Creed:

I believe that the new translations are a step backwards and confusing to the people in the pews.
I believe that Latin blocks simpletons such as most Catholics from understanding the mystery of Christ.

I believe Benedict XVI is an extremely bright man, but he doesn't have any street smarts.
I believe he is still stifling theologians who challenge ideas about Catholicism,
And I believe the Vatican is insisting we continue to explain the gospel in the language of the 13th century.

I believe Sotomayor and Diaz may truly be the new face of the Catholic Church in America;
I believe that President Obama wisely wants them to contribute to the image and reality of his administration.

I believe it is important to make a distinction between people who are pro abortion and people who are pro choice.
I believe President Obama wants to develop programs that will reduce the number of abortions while keeping it legal under most circumstances.

That's quite the faith! A fundamental conviction—articulated well in Fr. Reese's comment in the WaPo—is that ordinary Catholics are simple-minded, easily confused, intellectually challenged folks who can barely cross the street on their own, never mind comprehend some (much needed!) changes to the Missal.

Of course, if Catholics really are so clueless and pathetic, we shan't overlook the fact that since the late 1960s a huge number of them have been catechized, instructed, lectured, guided, lectured, and educated by Fr. Reese and Co., whose first instinct is to doubt the Church while lauding the dominant culture for (take your pick) being tolerant, inclusive, nuanced, moderate, balanced, fresh, new, blah, blah, blah.

Those who have reviewed the translation say it requires new responses from church members in about a dozen places in the Mass. Generally, those responses are relatively simple, as when members will respond "And with your spirit" after the celebrant says, "The Lord be with you." The current response is, "And also with you."

You, dear Catholic simpleton, are in danger of being confused by responses that are "relatively simple." And even if you weren't confused, you would still likely lack street smarts. You need to be a community organizer to have any of those.

Related Ignatius InsightArticles and Excerpts:

• The Mass of Vatican II | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
• Walking To Heaven Backward | Interview with Father Jonathan Robinson of the Oratory
• Does Christianity Need A Liturgy? | Martin Mosebach | From The Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy
• Worshipping at the Feet of the Lord: Pope Benedict XVI and the Liturgy | Anthony E. Clark, Ph.D.
• For "Many" or For "All"? | Excerpt from God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Music and Liturgy | Excerpt from The Spirit of the Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer | Excerpt from The Spirit of the Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• How Should We Worship? | Preface to The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Alcuin Reid, O.S.B. | by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Foreword to U.M. Lang's Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Rite and Liturgy | Denis Crouan, STD
• The Liturgy Lived: The Divinization of Man | Jean Corbon, OP
• Reflections On Saying Mass (And Saying It Correctly) | Fr. James V. Schall, S. J.
• Liturgy, Catechesis, and Conversion | Barbara Morgan

Comments

[Jackson]

If he's against it, I'm for it.

[Agapatos]

Nevertheless, I sort of agree with him, a bit:
"And with your spirit," is indeed a little stilted, after all, wouldn't you agree?
I, for one, wish we could have the freedom either to go totally high-church formal: "And with THY spirit;" or totally low-church informal: "And also with you." Now we're walking a middle road, and it means that we'll have to make a new identity for ouselves, which could take years to start to 'feel' natural. The same can be said for the Hail Mary, which to me sounds stilted when people say "The fruit of YOUR womb," rather than "the fruit of THY womb...." In fact, in old English, THY was the informal, and YOUR was the formal, which is precisely why "Your" sounds so stiff and stilted here.

[Sandra Miesel]

And I've heard that the new translation will use big scary words like "holy," "soul," and "grace." What a dreadful thing to foist on us poor simpletons.

[Mark Brumley]

If I cared much what Father Reese says, I might try to figure out what he means by the claim that the translation is a step backwards. Backwards? Toward the translation used in the interim liturgy between the 1962 missal and the 1969 missal? Or backwards toward Latin?

But, since I don't care very much about what Father Reese says, I won't bother to find out what he is talking about.

[Bender]

This isn't really helpful.

There are, what, 70 million Catholics in this country? The majority of whom have never known any other translation than the current one, which is nearly 40 years old (hardly new). Whatever his errors on other things, Fr. Reese is correct when he says that most Mass-going Catholics will not understand, and the non-regular Mass-going Catholics are certain to not understand.

Is this your response to those people? A bunch of snark?

[Will]

I guess I am a Catholic simpleton... THANK G-D!!!

[Carl E. Olson]

Whatever his errors on other things, Fr. Reese is correct when he says that most Mass-going Catholics will not understand...

Wow. So Catholics really are stupid? Okay. Of course, this same sort of concern didn't seem exist forty years ago when serious changes were made, many of them never intended by the Second Vatican Council. What of that? And, in fact, this is not the first time that revisions have taken place since the early 1970s.

Is this your response to those people? A bunch of snark?

I prefer the term "earned mockery," but it hardly matters. Fr. Reese has shown, many times over, that he has little to no regard for liturgical tradition, for translation that takes the liturgy and the Latin seriously, and for the desire of many Catholics for language that is more precise and theologically accurate. He apparently believes (or "knows"?) most Catholics are dumb, and so want a dumbed-down, insipid translation that puts ideology above reverence and banality over substance.

In the words of Sister Mary Ann Walsh (Director of Media Relations, USCCB): "We’ll learn a more exact language for prayer, we’ll deepen our theological roots, and we’ll gain a greater sense of the sacred." Call it whatever you like, but I don't think Fr. Reese and Co. actually want those things.

[Bill]

gee with all this confusion maybe it wasn't such a good idea to jettison Latin in the 60s. Attendance has plummeted since then.

[Charles E Flynn]

If you compare the present English translation with the French, German, and Spanish ones, you will find the English to be considerably less accurate. There is simply no way that the Latin "Et cum spiritu tuo" can be translated as "And also with you." The present translation is a defective consumer product derived from the mentality of the 1960s.

See http://pbsusa.org/Articles/Etcumspiritutuo.htm

[Gail F]

What never ceases to amaze me is the oft-repeated idea that "simple" people will be confused by "fancy" language. In this country, the translation of the Bible that is most popular with the least educated people is NOT the "Good News" Bible and its dumbed-down English, or even the standard modern English translations, but the King James translation. You'll hear it at nearly any street-front church. I guess we Catholics are supposed to be different, even though a high percentage of us are college educated. The poor "simple" Catholic in the pews is stupefied (oops, that's a big word -- I mean "confused") by the words "ineffable" and "consubstantial," while the people at the church down the street from me (I am not being literary, I really do live by a church like this), made up of mostly blue-collar workers, all read their KJV every day and love it.

Will people be confused by the new translation? Yes, because it's NEW. People don't like change, they like what is familiar. All change is confusing for a little while. Are Catholics incapable of understanding it? Not at all. Can we just retire that argument? PLEASE?

[Dan]

It is remarkable how, like a heat-seeking missile, the press seeks out, and latches onto, the dissenting view.

[Brad]

Subaru katholics won't like the fixes.

"Take this, all of you, and drink from it: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant; which will be poured out for you AND FOR MANY for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me."

The devil is disgusted by this clarity; he prefers pablum that will allow people to languish in mortal sin while feeling swell about themselves.

[Maria]

As my favorite detective, Adrian MONK would say, "I have nothing against change, I just don't like to be there when it happens."

Well, there are many changes in my life I wish I hadn't been there for, but the future changes in the mass translation I am so LOOKING FORWARD to.....WOOHOO!

[charlie]

Changes- no alter rails, standing to receive Him, Holy Communion in the hands, standing through Holy Communion- maybe, for once at least, the changes won't diminish what's left of reverence for His holy presence!

[Jason]

A step backwards? You mean to when the vast majority of Catholics actually assisted at Holy Mass every Sunday? To when seminaries and convents were packed? To when Mass was not a place for innovation and abuse, and men didn't show up in shorts and flip flops and women didn't show up wearing Daisy Dukes and tank tops?

That would be a step FORWARD.

What do you expect from a Jesuit.

[donbtex]

It is very offensive to me for people like Fr. Reese and Bishop Troutman to imply that Catholics in the pews are simpletons who cannot understand what is going on. There are many more of us that really do understand and appreciate the changes about to be implemented. I predict a more reverent atmosphere in our churches as the misguided changes from the past 40 years are corrected.
Deo gratias.

[JF]

I believe Fr. Reese is a hippie stuck in the Liturgical 60's!

[Christopher Lake]

As a fairly-young Catholic covert from agnosticism, many years ago, I once had the opportunity to speak with Father Reese by telephone. At the time, still spiritually immature and somewhat confused (RCIA was not very helpful), I was trying to understand and sort through the various voices in the Church, regarding the "spirit of Vatican II," liturgical changes, and so on. (I should say that I *had* been helped by the few books from Ignatius Press that I had read.) Not knowing anything of Father Reese's background or, ahem, "convictions," I asked him what he thought of certain authors associated with Ignatius Press. He replied that they "represent the very best of pre-Vatican II Catholicism."

I have to wonder what Father would say, now that Ignatius Press is the primary publisher of books in English by Pope Benedict XVI? Does the Pope himself "represent the very best of pre-Vatican II Catholicism"? (I honestly fear what Father Reese's answer to that question might be...)

Not too long after my conversation with Father, I left the Church and did not return until approximately two months ago. I was 23 (I think) when I left. I am now 37. I have many regrets. Bad catechesis (and inaccurate summations of Church councils/history), when given to the relatively young, can have very lamentable consequences.

To be clear, I can't entirely blame my leaving on poor catechesis. There were also my own sinful doubts and the tendencies of relative youth without a firm spiritual grounding (i.e. me at that time) to make poor, impulsive decisions. However, the bad catechesis certainly did not help me to *stay* in the Church. It is so tragically ironic that many dissident "Catholic" theologians likely think of themselves as being on the "cutting edge," and helping younger people to remain in the Church, when the reality is often just the opposite.

[Greg]

Father Reese displays the attitude that many clerics seem to have when it comes to the average person in the pew (which includes me): that we're stupid and have no clue. Is he retiring soon?

[Robert Miller]

I do agree that the Second Person singular is the more appropriate way for Catholics to address their Lord -- as in "Ich und Du". It is ironic that the bowdlerized translation we have been using for four decades puts increases the distance and formality between the Lord and His members in the name of some kind of "intelligibility". I also think that, if we must have the Mass in English, we should return to the usage "Holy Ghost", which doesn't mix Saxon and Latin, as in the hybrid usage, "Holy Spirit". Otherwise, I absolutely love the new translation. It's about the best you can do with the mess we call "English".

[rom thomski]

Father Reese, whoever he is, is stupid and has no clue. End of story.

[rom thomski]

BTW, Reese's complaint to wit "It will impact every Catholic in every parish because they will have to learn new responses in place of the ones they have been using since Vatican II,” is a red herring. Reese is not in the least worried about people having to learn anything new. Were that the case, the modernists would not have proffered the various changes they've advovated and instituted these past 40+ years. Nay, what they are worried about is their sinking ship and the fact that they are losing in the areana they chose to make a battlefield - the language and rubric of the liturgy. Don't be deceived by any of the modernists' canards and phony sympathy for what the suffering people will "have to learn". These are just the last gasps of complaint coming from the mouths of a dying breed - the moderist.

[Frank]

Maybe Reese should think with the Church rather than thinking like a Protestant. Many like Reese don't realize that they are virtual Protestants who lack the manly courage and integrity to proclaim himself a Protestant.

When was the last time you EVER heard Reese defend the faith or the Holy Father in public?

[rom thomski]

To the poster "Dan" who remarked, "It is remarkable how, like a heat-seeking missile, the press seeks out, and latches onto, the dissenting view." Point well taken, but you have to understand how modern liberal "journalism" works. Lib journalists don't do any research to find these dissenting quotes, they have a rolodex of libs whom they can telephone when they need a good lib quote to contradict the facts/orthodox position. Reese is likely simply in the reporter's rolodex. Reporter picks up phone, gets lib quote and then ...final copy. Reporter sits back and relaxes. My wife was editor of a newspaper (circulation 50,000) and worked for various magazines in NYC. This is how it's done. The lib reporter doesn't ignore 100's of other reliable quotes and through their own diligence unearth a dissenter like Reese, nay, the lib reporter calls fellow lib (like Reese) first, gets the lib's quote for showcasing, and then writes the story and maybe throws in some unpersuasive and meaningless quote for "balance". How is it that any article mentioning the Catholic Church will always showcase a quote from the on-topic dissenter-de-jour (Catholics [sic] for A Free Choice, Voice of the Faithful [sic], WomenPriests[sic].org, etc.]? How is that? Due diligence or the rolodex? Ha, frankly, the libs quoted in the respective articles probably help write the article itself knowing how libs operate. This is why the old media/MSM, much like Reese-types, are dying out and will be nothing more than a bad memory in another decade or so.

[Leonard]

Someone please tell the "loud mouths" in the pea"NUT" gallery that,"A step backwards" can be a good thing when your headed in the wrong direction and at the edge of a cliff.

[charlie]

Saint Padre Pio said that only the priest needs a missal, the laity should remain with the Holy Virgin & St. John at the foot of the cross when assisting at mass .All the changes of the last 40 or so years have made that more difficult for most of us to do. After one wrecking ball after another, these changes are quite innocuous.

[Peggy]

Credo -- 1st person singular: "I believe".

[Robert]

"I" "I" "I" "I" "I" "I" "I" Isn't that Fr Reece and the modernity he epitomises all over. Fullof self and puffed up with pride and vanity.
Conform to the Faith Fr Reece! Pull your head in!

[jedesto]

When someone at wprl says to me, "I hope you get a raise!", I always answer, "And also I hope you do. too!" Of course, afterwards, that person thinks I'm a nut case.

[T. Shaw]

But, I think a Catholic simpleton is superior to being yer typical NASCAR loving retard.

Thank the Lord! We have simpering savants like Fr. R to set us idiots straight - on the road to Hell.

[Sharon]

I am one of those ancient Catholics who lived thru all the changes in our church during the 60's. I managed to live thru it and continue to practice my faith and learn. I am looking forward to the changes coming in the new mass translation and Fr. R. needs to get over it and learn to follow the Holy Spirit in action.

[Dave R]

Or to the charge of "turning the clock back":
If a clock is running fast, what do you do to it? Shouldn't it show the correct time?

[LJ]

Subaru katholics

I like that one Brad.

[Allan Wafkowski]

Oh, he's still alive?

[Honor]

How typical of Reese; he idolizes the disastrous hope and 'change' of Obama and sneers at the 'change' for the better in the liturgy, and insults those in the pews. Well, it may be true that many in the pews are ignorant of the faith, but that's thanks to the likes of Reese himself, priests who have willfully misled those of simple faith--that doesn't mean they are simpletons though, but Reese's ego won't allow for this discrimination of terms. I have been praying for a retranslation ever since discovering, as a lector, an ungrammatical sentence in one of the readings. I reviewed it with the pastor, and he concurred that I might change one word to make it grammatical.
But hey, I'm just one of those simpletons in the pews. One of those same simpletons quite able to understand that there is no difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion, as both promote women choosing the deaths of their children in utero--oops, I slipped in one of those nasty archaic Latin terms. How dare I, a mere simpleton!? Sigh, and here I go again: one wants to ask Reese, what ever happened to the motto, "ad majoram dei gloriam" as the goal of all Jesuits endeavors, especially celebrating the sacrifice of the Mass?