Monday, January 2, 2012

Reactions to the New Roman Missal Translation

Vatican officials forced the new Roman Missal English translation claiming it will increase reverence during Mass.  Much like townspeople admiring the Emperor’s new clothes in Hans Christian Andersen’s fairytale, predictably some very orthodox Catholics already eagerly agree.  However, though most people seem to comply with the new translation, enthusiastic belief that it increases reverence seems to be a minority reaction of those I’ve witnessed.

As mentioned in a previous blog article, the word order reminds some people of Yoda’s disjointed speech patterns but without Yoda’s coherent and profound wisdom.  For example, the priest now asks, “Be pleased, O God, to bless, we pray…” rather than simply, “God, please bless…”, and the congregation prays, “…on earth peace to people…” rather than “…peace to people on earth.”  These word order choices cause involuntary smiles, rolled eyes, groans and chuckles.  Maybe in some cultures those are signs of reverence.

I think church leaders do believe those are forms of reverence because as people stumble and fumble through the new translation, church leaders tell us to laugh, keep our sense of humor, and not take our participation in the Mass too seriously.  Oh…mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa (my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault).

The Yoda-like speech patterns are not the only source of “reverent” comedy in the new translation.  The new language also reminds some people of Mr. Collins, the comical obsequious Anglican priest character in Jane Austen’s novel “Pride and Prejudice”.  Mr. Collins perpetually sucks-up to his haughty, self-important benefactress, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, kowtowing to the point of buffoonery.  Priests now utter statements befitting Mr. Collins such as this, “Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit.”   I can almost hear David Bamber, who played Mr. Collins in the BBC’s rendition of the story, reciting such a line.  Do church leaders truly think God who humbly became a poor homeless man has character and tastes similar to Lady Catherine?  Do they think the faithful are stupid toadies like Mr. Collins?   

In seeking condescension through flattery and flowery speech, the translation adds an extra comedic effect by misusing words.  The priest now prays, “Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall” rather than “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy.”  However, “dewfall” is actually a time of day not a thing.  Specifically it is the time of evening when dew forms.  Thus rather than pray that the Spirit romantically cover and soak our offering with holiness like dew covers the grass, the priest asks the Spirit to send night upon it.  What does that mean? 

According to the new translation, humble, impoverished Jesus now celebrates his Last Supper using a regal “chalice” rather than a simple “cup.”  This word choice launches still other people into “reverent” parodied versions of the “Chalice from the Palace” scene in “The Court Jester” movie.  This scene involves a pre-joust toast between Hawkins (played by comedian Danny Kaye) and the opposing knight.  Griselda, an ally of Hawkins, poisoned one of the drinks and they have this comical exchange clarifying which cup he should take.

Hawkins: I've got it! I've got it! The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!  Right?
Griselda: Right. But there's been a change: they broke the chalice from the palace!
Hawkins: They broke the chalice from the palace?
Griselda: And replaced it with a flagon.
Hawkins: A flagon...?
Griselda: With the figure of a dragon.
Hawkins: Flagon with a dragon.
Griselda: Right.
Hawkins: But did you put the pellet with the poison in the vessel with the pestle?
Griselda: No!!! The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon! The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!
Hawkins: The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.
Griselda: Just remember that.

Maybe since Jesus in the sacramental precious blood is “the brew that is true”, translators believe he belongs in the “chalice from the palace.”  However, since the “chalice from the palace” broke, perhaps we should instead have Jesus using the “vessel with the pestle.”  On New Year’s Day the priest did call Mary a vessel that carried Jesus.  So, the “vessel with the pestle” did also carry, “the brew that is true.”  Nonetheless, this too inspires that rare form of “reverent” comedy that our church leaders seem to encourage these days.

People well schooled in Catholic teaching can only “reverently” laugh when the priest repeatedly refers to Jesus’ “holy and venerable hands”.  Since in Catholicism “venerable” is a term ascribed to people in their first step towards canonization, these people chuckle wondering why the translators demoted Jesus from being divine to being merely on his first step towards canonization.  They hope someday church leaders grant Jesus full canonization; he has after all performed numerous miracles – far more than blessed John Paul II who is on his next-to-last step towards canonization.

Others delight in “reverent” humor as the preface to the Sanctus now includes language reminiscent of Saturday morning cartoons.   For these people when the priest proclaims, “And so, with Angels and Archangels, with Thrones and Dominions, and with all the hosts and Powers of heaven”, it is difficult not to hear the narrator’s voice from  the “Super Friends” cartoon show adding, “…and with Batman, Robin, Aquaman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the Wonder Twins and the entire Hall of Justice League”.

Yet others enjoy “reverent” hilarity as people now say, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof” as reference to the “roof” conjures up the famous lyric, “the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire”, a lyric that should not in any way be associated with the Eucharist.

Perhaps all this “reverent” comedy built into the new translation is why a respected friend wondered if Monty Python could possibly parody the Mass any better than the farce we now have in the new translation.

I have fielded inquiries if the translators were on crack when they undertook the effort.  I think the narcotic of choice for the translators is actually power not crack. 

I do wonder why translators saw fit to turn the Mass into a “divine comedy” reminiscent of a bawdy theatrical troupe production.  And I do wonder how this seems more reverent to some people, but I appreciate that the Spirit validly and genuinely touches people in different ways.  However, why must we all be subjected to the spirituality of people like Mr. Collins?

In kindergarten I acted as a townsperson in a play of the Emperor’s New Clothes.  As a five-year-old tiny bit actress, I went along with the script admiring the emperor’s non-existent new clothes.  Now, I am a critical thinking adult who acts upon my conscience.  I decided I prefer genuine reverence rather than “reverent” comedy during Mass, regardless of how great church leaders say it is.  Therefore, I continue to say aloud the old responses and silently read from an old copy of the missal during the consecration. 

Do you find your participation in Mass more reverent with the new translation?  If not, what are you doing to address that?   


  1. I have never laughed so hard at one of your blogs. I too, will continue to say, "and also with you" because "and with your spirit" sounds like I'm talking to a dead person. "Grevious fault" and "consubstantial", who uses words like that? My son, who is a CEO(Christmas Easter only) commented saying,"So, now we only wish peace to people of good will? Not everyone? We aren't wishing peace to those who need it most?"

    1. I too have thought of this, only wishing peace to people of good will makes no sense. So much just makes no sense. :(

  2. As someone who was unable to attend church when the new translation went in to effect, it was disconcerting to encounter this at a funeral. I was rather appalled by the idea of giving "kind admittance" into God's kingdom instead of welcoming the departed. The connotation of kind admittance is, 'sure, we'll let you in' whereas welcoming is, 'we are so glad you are here'. Which would you rather hear at a loved one's funeral?

    On a more personal note, the reason why I was unable to attend Mass when the new translation went in to effect is that I was in the hospital battling sepsis and wondering why no one was bringing me communion even though I had listed my religion on my admittance paperwork as Roman Catholic. An email to a local priest went unanswered. Had I actually died from my septic infection, I have confidence that a loving Father would have WELCOMED me to heaven. I am saddened that no priest would come to provide me with a sacrament to help me on my journey.

  3. Suzanne- I am very glad you got well again and hope you are completely recovered. Your story about not being visited is very sad. It tells me that there are things wrong in the church that are much more fundamental than linguistic oddities, however symptomatic they may be of theological decay.

  4. I second Alfred's comment. I would like to say that God doesn't care about this silliness with the translation. However, I believe perhaps God does care that church leaders have misplaced priorities, focusing on that which matters less to the detriment of that which matters more. An hour a week of good liturgy should inspire good service to humanity the rest of the week. Sadly, for many, liturgy and piety are an end in themselves. I too am saddened that you were neglected in pastoral care, especially since you personally contact a member of the clergy.

  5. The new translation- another attempt at encouraging thinking people to leave the church so, like Trent , " because I said so" , is the only rationale that need be offered. Better to be a church that remains small and orthodox rather a huge servant model church /accepting, affirming and responsible. Hierarchal control is what is most important -especially when you have priceless treasures (Vatican)to control , cherish and protect . Todays Catholic church hierarchy sickens me.
    Pam S

  6. An anonymous person submitted a disrespectful comment that I will not post. However, I will post a reminder that to ensure your comments are published, they must be respectful and not be anonymous.

  7. Sorry an emergency delayed pulling points from the anonymous disrespectful comment & addressing them as I usually do.

    The person said “dewfall” now has multiple meanings including “fall of dew”, felt the new translation “much more accurate and beautiful”, the humor “highly inappropriate” & that the humor proved the, “former mistranslation encourages irreverence.” She hopes this is a 1st step in the “reform of the reform” & recalled that the Mass celebrates a “propitiatory sacrifice” not just a common meal.

    1)Dew doesn’t “fall”. It forms as condensation. The revised translation says, “Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” Using “dewfall” to mean dew formation still doesn’t make sense because it is not “sent down”.

    2)Is it a better translation? Examine the source Latin in the 1975 Ordo Missae. It says, “Vere Sanctus es, Dòmine, fons omnis sanctitàtis. Haec ergo dona, quaesumus, Spìritus tui rore sanctìfica, ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiant Dòmini nostri Jesu Christi.”

    Below I insert the meaning of each Latin word, a literal approach (the new translation supposedly is a better literal one).

    Vere (indeed) Sanctus (Holy) es (you are), Dòmine (Lord), fons (font) omnis (of all) sanctitàtis (holiness). Haec (this) ergo (therefore) dona (gift), quaesumus (we beseech/pray), Spìritus (Spirit) tui (your) rore (dew) sanctìfica (sanctify or make holy), ut (as) nobis (your) Corpus (body) et (and) Sanguis (blood) fiant (be made) Dòmini (Lord) nostri (our) Jesu (Jesus) Christi (Christ).

    Smoothing this out yields, “You are holy indeed, Lord, the fountain of all holiness. These gifts, we pray you, sanctify (with) the dew of your Spirit, in order that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    The source Latin doesn’t contain, “descendit missio” (“to send down”). Thus, the concept of dew “falling” or “sending down” is the translators’ creation. How is that more accurate?

    Latin for the new wording might be, “Fac sanctorum ergo dona, quaesumus, Spiritus tui mittendo eis quasi ros descendit, ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiant Domini nostri Iesu Christi."

    Fac (make) sanctorum (holy) ergo (therefore) dona (gifts), quaesumus (we beseech/pray), Spiritus (spirit) tui (your) mittendo (sending) eis (them) quasi (like) ros (dew) descendit (descend/fall), ut (as) nobis (your) Corpus (body) et (and) Sanguis (blood) fiant(be made) Domini (Lord) nostri (our) Iesu (Jesus) Christi (Christ). "

    Which is more accurate, old or new? Look at the three and decide:
    You are holy indeed, Lord, the fountain of all holiness. These gifts, we pray you, sanctify (with) the dew of your Spirit, in order that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

    Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

    Other than the word “dew”, the former translation seems a more accurate literal and dynamic translation. Which is “more beautiful”? Beauty is a matter of taste. Some feel the new is more beautiful; many do not.

    3)Does the former translation inspire irreverence? People who find the new translation comical didn’t see the old one as such. So, the new translation causes irreverence. People are offended because they know the Mass is propitiatory and feel the new translation makes a mockery of a very sacred thing.

    4)Why was the comment disrespectful? The person said my “level of ignorance was hard to believe”. Readers may judge if my command of Latin and English is too ignorant for them to bear or more ignorant than the author of the comment accusing me of such

  8. Sorry, I unintentionally only included the Epiclesis text in the new translation in the previous comment. The section I used for the other two has the Thanksgiving and Epiclesis (Greek word for "invocation" when the priest calls upon the Spirit)parts of the Consecration (Prayer II). Here are all three versions for your reading pleasure:

    Which is more accurate, old or new? Look at the three and decide:
    You are holy indeed, Lord, the fountain of all holiness. These gifts, we pray you, sanctify (with) the dew of your Spirit, in order that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

    You are indeed Holy, O Lord, the fount of all holiness. Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

  9. By the way, "therefore" in the new translation is the word "ergo" in Latin. That does not appear at all in the source Latin text either. So, that is another word inserted by the translators.

    Also, in English to begin a sentence with a verb is a command. I prefer and believe it more reverent to say "Let your Spirit" rather than commanding God "make holy". English does not have a verb tense that denotes submission. Instead we say "let". It is a softer command, somewhat of a request rather than a demand as the new text has.

  10. Thanks for this, Louise. I love telling people that I had two years of Latin in my public high school - and do add it was conversational Latin, not "church Latin" - whatever that means. The big difference between you and I is you obviously remember it, and I do not! :)

  11. My participation is definitely not more reverent--I find it difficult to participate at all. I am seventy years old and have been a liturgy and symbols geek ever since the Vatican II changes became widespread 35 years or more ago. I love the liturgy and music I have been singing and celebrating for all that time, and I feel it slipping away. I bought into the promises and responsibilities promulgated by Vatican II with all my heart, but under the last two papacies, the people who call the shots in our Church are doing their level best to renege on as many of them as they can.
    So for the first few weeks after implementation of the new Roman Missal, I was more or less into passive-aggressive resistance, either using the old responses or mouthing the new ones as though they tasted bad. Now, at least for the time being, I guess I will just respond silently in my heart. It is not what the Eucharist is supposed to be all about, but I can't just pretend everything is hunky-dory.
    Jim Henne

    1. Sir,
      The passive-aggressive resistance you refer to has been apparent in my parish since the First Sunday of Advent and has now been tacitly approved by the pastor. He had already been avoiding the use of "chalice" and "for many (pro multis)" in the first half of the Eucharistic Prayer. However, he chose on Epiphany to use the old sung Eucharistic Prayer from the Mass of Creation, including the old People's Responses to the Preface, while allowing his
      "flow" interrupted by the new Mystery of Faith, perhaps to show how "jarring" that is. During the second part of the Prayer, he allowed the cantor to sing the old "Christ has Died" over his recitation of the new translation. As you might imagine, the response to the final blessing was a unison, defiant, "and also with you!" that had not been heard since Thanksgiving.
      From all this, I can only conclude that this pastor does not believe that the liturgy is any larger than his personal philosophy or the parish's financial bottom line. You would probably love it at this parish, but for me, what I call that incendiary "Frankenstein Mass" was the last straw in my decision to seek a new parish.
      I do applaud you for your final decision to keep your personalized responses to yourself and not bug the other parishioners who may actually want to pray the approved version undisturbed.
      D.P., Cincinnati, OH

    2. Actually, saying the former responses is not passive aggressive because it is not passive. It is an active resistance.

      The former responses are approved. That version of the Mass has not been invalidated. Otherwise, we would be invalidating all previous Masses. We have not done that. We just have another translation.

      Here's food for thought: my parents live with me and when we pray grace together at every meal, my mother and I say "In the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit". But, my dad says "Holy Ghost". Somehow we manage to pray together without being offended or distracted. I would hope that folks who wish to pray the new Mass are focused enough themselves and supportive enough of others' spirituality that they are not rattled by others praying different words. I have been able to pray words (either the old words or the corrected Mass translation...I translated the Mass myself because the new translation is not accurate) that differ from what others are saying without being distracted. I wonder why the same tolerance cannot be given in the opposite direction. I have tolerated the ultra-pious practically tripping people in the communion line as they kneel to receive. I have tolerated people defying the GIRM and kneeling after communion. Why is there not tolerance in both directions?

      Also, the bishops did not support this translation. It is being forced, and actually in conflict with church dogma about how the brotherhood of bishops is supposed to work. I think we should insist that the Curia offices in the Vatican adhere to church teachings rather than circumvent processes to get their way.

  12. It's a more accurate, dignified, reverent and beautiful rendering of the original. I haven't found anyone who has difficulties with it, and it seems to have been accepted very well.

  13. @Anonymous, please keep in mind that you are supposed to identify yourself when offering comments to this blog.

    You expressed opinions as though they are facts. Many people such as Latin scholars would debate that this is a more accurate translation. Accuracy is a somewhat objective but also very subjective concept. It would be helpful to know your credentials and some substance as to why you believe this is more accurate. Based upon my grasp of Latin and looking at the source Latin from the 1975 Missal tells me it's not more accurate. Please refer to a previous comment I posted that shows the one section that clearly is not more accurate. It changed the meaning (less accurate dynamic) and was less accurate of a literal translation. In general, as a student who has studied languages, I find literal translations less accurate than dynamic ones.

    Beauty, reverence and dignity are purely subjective so you express an opinion, and one that is not universally held.

  14. The only reason you are extracting comedy from the sacred liturgy is that you have been sufficiently saturated with secular media that had inserted such references a priori, and taken those more seriously than the words of your Savior as passed down by the Apostles. Try placing more weight on the liturgy and less on the funny movie. Then, perhaps, the liturgy may feel less comic and you may also realize that you are the butt of the jokes in the movie, thereby saving yourselves from contributing to the coffers of those who mock you.

    D.P., Cincinnati, OH

    PS - If you believe Yoda (whose order went down in flames, no less) has more profound wisdom than the Church, perhaps you are not actually a Catholic, but a Buddhist.

  15. @D.P. Comments must be respectful. Though yours isn't, I will publish and use to teach.

    Jesus spoke Aramaic. Eucharist was in Greek, changed a lot, then in Latin, then in English. Suggested Reading on the history of Liturgy: "Doors to the Sacred" by Martos, "The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite" by Mazza, "Prayers of the Eucharist" by Jasper and Cuming, "Mysterium Pachale" by von Balthasar, "Masterworks of God" by Mannion, "The Spirit of the Liturgy" by Ratzinger, "The Mystery of Christ" by Keating, "The Mystery of Easter" by Cantalamessa, "God is Near Us" by Ratzinger, "The Eucharist - Essence, Form, Celebration" by Emminghaus, "Pastoral Foundations of the Sacraments" by Klein and Wolfe, and the Didache. Most are used at St. Mary of the Lakes seminary in Mundelein, IL.

    The words of institution mostly come from Paul who wasn't at the Last Supper but met Jesus in a resurrection encounter. The Didache is the earliest writings of the Apostles (1st century). It reveals the first apostles celebrated an agape meal and thanksgiving. There is no mention of the Last Supper. Here are some things it does say,
    From Ch. 9 re: the cup: "We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of your child David, which you made known to us through your child Jesus; glory to you for evermore."

    Re: the bread: "We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through your child Jesus; glory to you for evermore. As this broken bread was scattered over the mountains, and when brought together became one, so let your church be brought together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; for yours are the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for evermore."

    "But let no one eat or drink of your thanksgiving but those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For about this also the Lord has said, 'Do not give what is holy to the dogs.'"

    From Ch. 10:
    "And after you have had your fill, give thanks thus:
    We give thanks to you , holy Father, for your holy Name which you have enshrined in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you made known to us through your child Jesus; glory to you for evermore. You, almighty Master, created all things for the sake of your Name, and gave food and drink to mankind for their enjoyment that they might give you thanks; but to us you have granted spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your child Jesus. Above all we give you thanks because you are mighty; glory to you for evermore. Amen.

    Remember, Lord, your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in your love; bring it together from the four winds, now sanctified, into your kingdom which you have prepared for it, for yours are the power and the glory for evermore."

    "May grace come, and may this world pass away."

    "Hosanna to the God of David."

    "If any is holy, let him come; if any is not, let him repent. Marana tha. Amen"

    "But about the words over the sweet savor, give thanks thus, as we say...."

    "We give thanks to you, Father, for the sweet savor which you have made known to us through your Son Jesus; glory to you for evermore. Amen."

    From Ch. 14: "On the Lord's day of the Lord, come together, break bread, and give thanks, having first confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let none who quarrel with his companion join with you until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled. For this is what was spoken by the Lord, 'In every place, and at every time, offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

    The words used in the liturgy now are no closer to what the original apostles used than the words we used in October, 2011, or November of 1962 for that matter.

  16. Also @ d.p. 1. You have no foundation to say "the only reason you are ... is... " because a) you do not know me, & b) because that is not the only reason. You also have no foundation to comment on my spirituality or to insinuate my religious affiliation is something other than what I assert. Those statements violate the 8th Commandment. They bear false witness.

    2. Your statements also violate a few canons due to their tone. Specifically:

    Can. 208 From their rebirth in Christ, there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality regarding dignity and action by which they all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ according to each one’s own condition and function.

    Can. 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.

    3. I actually watch very little t.v. or movies, typically less that one hour per week. Thus, I am far from "saturated" by secular media. That statement also violates the 8th Commandment.

    4. Your usage of "a priori" confused me. "A priori" means something is arrived at via deductive reasoning. What do you believe was arrived at through deductive reasoning? If I read your comment correctly you say that the secular media insert references to liturgy via deductive reasoning. I do not understand that statement, as you would seem to be endorsing secular media in the same statement seemingly expressing your disdain for it.

    5. As mentioned above, the Mass contains very few words of our Lord. It also does not resemble what the original Apostles said in liturgy. The reading list suggested in my previous comment would be a good place to start if you are interested in learning about the history of liturgy.

    6. I would hope that no one present at liturgy is the butt of jokes by the hierarchy. If that is the case, perhaps they are in the wrong profession. Regardless, I am in regular communication with my bishop. We met for over an hour in the past week - talking - discussing. Thus, I don't think we mock each other. Actually one of the things we discussed was that in the 3rd century Tertullian wrote that the non-christians observed about the Christians, "see how much they love each other." To me, statements like yours do not engender that sentiment. The observation I made to my bishop and with which he agreed is that many people in the church do not treat each other well; this is especially true in how the pious treat those whom they feel are not pious enough. Rather than care for each other, they judge. Your comments come across as bullying and judgmental. They are similar to comments written anonymously or almost anonymously on many internet sites and are just one example of why Tertullian's statement is not said about the church these days. That is a tragedy. It harms the church's credibility.

    7. You make an incorrect assumption that I donate to the church hierarchy.

    8. You make incorrect assumptions about the value I place on the church vs Yoda. You also are incorrect in conveying the ultimate state of the Jedi. They triumph in the end. Regardless, I hope you understand that the magisterium has 4 facets, including the sensus fidelium (the sense of the faithful). I am the church as much as you are the church. Your comment makes me wonder if you incorrectly think that "the church" is "the hierarchy". According to church dogma the church is "the people of God". And I do value the voice of God's people (real people) more than fictional characters.

    I would ask that in the future you take ownership for opinions and present them as such. Instead you seem to state your opinions as though they are facts. They are not. Perhaps if you took that approach your comment would sound more worthy of Tertullian's statement, "see how much they love each other".

  17. @ D.P. also. You mentioned the words of our Savior. As previously observed, the Mass has changed and been translated many times. Maybe you refer to what's called the words of institution taken from the Last Supper. The source Latin text says this (all caps are direct copy from the source):


    However, the new Mass translation doesn't say that. It says (with inaccuracies noted in lower case letters), "TAKE THIS, ALL of you, AND EAT of IT, for THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU." And, "TAKE THIS, ALL of you, AND DRINK FROM IT, for THIS IS THE CHALICE (Latin for chalice and cup are the same word) 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.

    But, if we look at Scripture we see there is no agreement between the authors as to what Jesus said at the Last Supper. And none of them agree with the new translation.
    From Mark 14:22-24, "While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take it; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.'"

    From MT 26:26-29, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.'"

    From Luke 22:17-20 (note this has 2 cups: cup, bread, cup), "Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.' Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.'"

    John's gospel does not include the institution narrative. However, 1 Cor 11:23-25 does, "…that the Lord Jesus on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, 'this is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'” It is the 1 Cor version that has usually been used for the consecration. Paul was not at the Last Supper, by the way.

  18. Have only now (Feb 2013) seen this article.
    Have immediately put it on my "New Translation" file, a collection of concern articles about the new translation - @

    Have also put it on Feb 18 menu of

  19. Lelouch vi BritanniaJune 17, 2013 at 12:14 PM

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    Honestly, what were they thinking? That coming up with a new, more flowery translation that reeks of purple prose would make them look smarter? The previous translation was more concise and to the point.