Complete a survey on the new Missal

We began using part of the new translation of the Missal a year ago. There’s a survey on the experience on the website of USCatholic. One for priests, and another for laity:
It would be interestng to hear reflections of Irish people on their experience so far, to see whether prior opinions have remained the same, or have changed in any way, or whether there is an indifference to the whole matter. As it’s set up, replies go back to USCatholic. Maybe there’s some way we could channel Irish responses to ACP, with permission from USCatholic.

Similar Posts


  1. What a pity that instead of the US Catholic conducting a survey
    of opinion that a Bishop did not see this issue as a matter for leadership by instigating a diocesan-wide inquiry.
    Wouldn’t that be a good idea in Ireland and here in UK?
    The courage to listen is in short supply. No wonder that Cardinal Martini asked “why are we so afraid?”
    Report Comment

  2. Mary Wood says:

    The distinction between priests and laity is somewhat false as neither group is involved alone. Each needs the counter-balance of the other. We layfolk don’t have to cope with the verbal surprises of the priest, but we listen to them as we participate attentively. The priest has the major share of “newness” but he is also going to be affected (one hopes) by the quality of response and understanding in the congregation. Bluntly, we’re all in it together.

  3. Fr. Bernard Eager says:

    As a retired priest, ordained 52 years ago, I celebrate Mass in several different parishes
    week by week. I have not yet met any priest or lay person who is happy or comfortable
    with the new translation. In particular the opening prayers (collects) are criticised most.
    In the main, whoever wrote them never read them out loud. For many who hear them,
    they are practically meaningless and do nothing to increase devotion. So far as
    I can tell, no one is enthralled by the new translation and it has done nothing to attract
    more people to Sunday Mass nor to help those who attend to come closer to Christ who once
    said “when you pray don’t babble but pray like this: our Father ….” – simple short sentences! Can
    the translators not learn from the Master?

  4. Paul Andrew says:

    Thank you so much for highlighting this opportunity to make my views known. I have responded to the survey, making it clear that the new translation is a great gift to the Church; the liturgy is immeasurably enhanced by its introduction. I shall encourage other Catholics to respond.
    Please may we now have ad orientem worship, together with Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue.

  5. Eddie Finnegan says:

    Paul Andrew, I’ve worshipped ad orientem all my life. Now would you like fries, a Capuchino or a cappa magna with all that? Have a good day!

  6. Joe O'Leary says:

    “the new translation is a great gift to the Church; the liturgy is immeasurably enhanced by its introduction” — are these slogans or personal perceptions?

  7. Paul Andrew says:

    Mr O’Leary, they’re personal perceptions. Growing up in the post-Vatican II Church, I nevertheless had a very clear feeling that the English translation of the Novus Ordo was sorely lacking, both in its accuracy and its banal use of language. The new translation is such a vast improvement that I no longer assist at Mass only on Sundays, but also on weekdays when time permits.
    Mr Finnegan, I’m delighted to inform you that the cappa magna has made its appearance on a number of occasions at a church where I worship, much to the approval of the ordinary man in the pews.

  8. Sean (Derry) says:

    Careful there Paul, the cappa magna is a bit of a sore point with Eddie. Good to hear you too value the recent changes in the liturgy. In Long Tower Church, here in Derry there is a increasing number of men and women receiving communion on the tongue whilst kneeling (we still have altar rails as this church, under the protection of St. Columba, (and many good priests) survived the desecration suffered by most other churches under the guise of the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II. In fact just recently a priest even spoke out, during his sermon, about the evils of abortion and artificial contraception. There is hope.

  9. David Walsh says:

    I agree the new translation does not sound as if it was meant for reading aloud. I sometimes squirm for a priest trying to get his tongue around difficult words. After two attempts yesterday Fr. J gave up trying to make the closing prayer sound sensible.
    Hearing and understanding requires one to relate what one hears to what one knows already. There is no time during Mass to do that with the new translation, and also participate in the worship.
    I thought bishops could authorize a local vernacular. Why can’t our bishops say “thank you for the more definitive translation from the Latin. As we don’t have Latin scholars we will use it to devise our vernacular version.”

  10. I’m responsible for liturgy in a London parish without a resident priest. We first introduced the new translation in the summer of 2011 by using some of the sung Mass settings with the aim of embedding the sung texts in our minds before saying them. What has become clear is that many of the texts are indeed better sung than said. I was also told by someone involved in the translation process that the new texts were primarily composed to be sung rather than said, whereas the earlier translations – going back even to the very first ones in pre-ICEL 1960’s – were composed to be said. A musician has also pointed out to me that some of the present constructions of words and sentences reflect more North American intonation or accenting. This, then, may also affect the way in which we in Ireland, England, Wales or Scotland face difficulties in proclaiming, reading, or singing these new texts.

  11. Eddie Finnegan says:

    Hi Sean. Almost missed your cappa magna crack. Thanks – nice to be remembered. Hope all’s well in Stroke City and glad to hear Long Tower’s surviving.

  12. Sean (Derry) says:

    Hi Eddie, always enjoy your comments even though I often disagree with them. Sometimes I even have to use Google first to understand the ones that go over my head before I can disagree with them.
    God bless.

  13. Jim Johnson says:

    I agree with Paul Andrew – the new translation is a great improvement on the old. The closer the wording is to the original the better, and better still would be the widespread reintroduction of the extraordinary form in all parishes together with all the associated catholic devotion which has been improperly sidelined in the name of Vatican 2.
    Let’s face it guys, the 1970s have had their day.

  14. Louie Macari says:

    I tried to enter my thoughts on the US site but entries are closed so I thought I could express my views after a year of attending Mass in the new format.
    Some things are OK however some of the language just grates and sometimes I feel that I am at Mass in a foreign language.
    The things which are really difficult are:-
    “the Word/Gospel of the Lord” Even at a recent Mass with the Scottish Bishops one of the readers used the old form. The new one might sound fine in Latin but it does not work in English when we need a verb in the sentence.
    “Consubstantial” in the Creed when “one in substance” could have done just as well.
    The other minor changes to the Creed which for which there was really no good reason
    The use of the word “Chalice” instead of cup when the words used in the Greek text (and the Latin) mean cup.
    The “Exultet” has lost its poetic strength and in fact at a Cathedral near me the old version was used by the priest.
    I occasionally attend weekday eucharist at a Scottish Episcopal church and feel more at home with the language there.
    The real shame of the changes to the common prayers is the destruction of what we had in common with the other Churches.
    I believe the next changes will be to the Psalms then I will feel as if I am no longer in the same community.
    Best Wishes

Join the Discussion

Keep the following in mind when writing a comment

  • Your comment must include your full name, and email. (email will not be published). You may be contacted by email, and it is possible you might be requested to supply your postal address to verify your identity.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack the writer. Take on the idea, not the messenger. Comments containing vulgarities, personalised insults, slanders or accusations shall be deleted.
  • Keep to the point. Deliberate digressions don't aid the discussion.
  • Including multiple links or coding in your comment will increase the chances of it being automati cally marked as spam.
  • Posts that are merely links to other sites or lengthy quotes may not be published.
  • Brevity. Like homilies keep you comments as short as possible; continued repetitions of a point over various threads will not be published.
  • The decision to publish or not publish a comment is made by the site editor. It will not be possible to reply individually to those whose comments are not published.