Dictionary.com

This weekend the Catholic Church is changing the required English-language Mass. This is a big deal because it is the third time in the 1700-year history of the Church that the Mass is being formally changed, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. First let’s review a brief history of the Catholic Church. The Church and its sacred documents were codified at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and it didn’t really change for 1200 years. As a response to the Protestant Reformation, the Church called the Council of Trent in 1545, and it went on for 18 years. That’s the longest family meeting ever.

One topic recurs again and again at Church councils: language. Jesus did not speak English; in fact, he didn’t speak Latin either. (He probably spoke Aramaic, which is related to Arabic and Hebrew.) Different sections of the Christian Bible are written in different languages, too, and there have been many, many different translations over the years. However, the Catholic Church does not say, “We don’t know.” Instead at large, official meetings, they reaffirm a particular translation. At the Council of Trent, they reaffirmed the Vulgate, which was a Latin version of the Bible translated by Saint Jerome in the 300s. The Church doesn’t hold very many of these councils. After the Council of Trent, the next one that specifically address language in Church doctrine was 400 years later when Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (also called Vatican II) to discuss how the Catholic Church would face the modern world.

The major change initiated by Vatican II was to translate the traditional Latin mass into the vernacular. What is the vernacular? A vernacular is a language specific to a place. In the context of the Catholic Church it means any language that is not Latin. Until 1965, all Catholic Mass was said in Latin, and the Church realized that may alienate parishioners who spoke Latin only in church.

So the Church had to translate the Catholic Mass into a variety of different languages. At the time, the Church wanted these translations to reflect how people spoke in everyday life. However, the Church realized they may have gone too far and drifted from the original Latin Mass, and so the new English-language Mass is closer to the original Latin. The old version used the word “happy” where the new version uses the word “blessed.”

Translation is a notoriously difficult feat. If you speak two languages, you already know that they don’t fit together perfectly. There are many things that you can say in one language that you can never say quite the same way in any other language. An old adage, “Translators, traitors,” embodies the sentiment that many feel towards translations.

It is also often said that there are as many translations as there are translators. Translating into English may be a particularly variable task because English has such a large vocabulary that there are numerous options for any one word. For example, one line that is changing in the new English-language Mass may seen inconsequential. The old text reads: “of all that is seen and unseen.” The new text reads: “of all things visible and invisible.” They have the same meaning, but the Church says the new one is closer to the original Latin.

The new version sounds clunkier and more like Latin at times. In the Eucharistic Prayer before Communion, where it used to read “When supper ended, He took the cup,” it now reads, “In a similar way, when supper was ended, He took this precious chalice in His holy and venerable hands.”Some of the changes have more significant religious meaning. For example, when the priest says that Jesus died for their sins he will now say “for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins” instead of “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.”

Here are more side-by-side examples in The Washington Post.

What do you think of translation?

Christmas Starts Here: Male order.(Features)

Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland) November 16, 2004 When a man is asked what he wants for Christmas, more often than not he’ll reply ‘nothing’, ‘I’ve already got everything I want’ or ‘I don’t mind’. Alas, help is at hand with our top 10 of suitable gifts for Scotsmen everywhere. It’s an eclectic and reasonably-priced mix to give him something to smile about when he opens his stocking on Christmas morning. We’ve gone easy on the power tools (just one) in case he thinks he has to put up a shelf before tucking into the turkey. go to site beard trimmer

Baghera String – pounds 13.50Bring out the animal in your bloke with some jungle pants by Hom. They are tight fitting, seductive and have high-cut legs. Just don’t let him wear the Baghera down the gym.

Twister Duvet Cover – pounds 24.95-pounds 39.95 The old carpet game transferred to the bed, from single to king size. Great for practising yoga positions and to give the man in your life some exercise. Comes with two giant foam-filled dice.

Makita Power Drill/Driver – pounds 75 For the technically minded, this has the best ‘torque in class’. With a two-speed gearbox, 9.6 volts and a keyless chuck just like those four times the price, this won’t let you down. Happy drilling holes in the wall and driving screws into the floor. go to site beard trimmer

J by Jasper Conran – pounds 64An exquisite sterling silver watch, oblong-shaped dial with a blue face.

Oval Bangle – pounds 59 Shaped from sterling silver, this wrist jewellery will look sleek on any man.

Tasteful – not tasteless.

ChristmasstartshereTed Baker Skinwear Gift Set – pounds 29 A Christmas present that’s not to be sniffed at.

This pack contains eau de toilette, a body wash and a deodorant. May keep him going till the spring.

Telescopic Fishing Rod – pounds 14.99 No excuse for letting that big one get away. Your other half can put this telescopic rod in his car glovebox or fit it into a weekend bag so he is always ready for some fishing. This rod extends to five feet and comes in a neat pouch with tackle and reel.

Trivial Pursuit 20th Edition – pounds 24.99 Nearly 5000 new questions based solely on the past two decades, so you can test his knowledge back to the ’80s.

There are new categories and even a special wedge holder.

The Glenlivet – pounds 22.99 This 12-year-old single malt from Speyside will slip down rather well over the festive period. Whisky buffs sometimes say this oak-matured malt is a benchmark for others. Exceptional beside an open fire as the snow falls outside.

Ben Sherman Grooming Kit – pounds 34.99 Forget the barbers, with this he can tidy up his hair himself. The electric hair-clippers can give him a number one, two, three and four cut. A battery-driven device acts as a nose-hair and beard trimmer.

192 Comments

  1. Mike -  June 21, 2014 - 1:43 am

    I have just returned from Mass after some time away from the Catholic church due to illness.
    I’m very sad.
    Why does the Catholic church keep changing the liturgy?
    Several years ago I was relieved to see the Tabernacle returned to the altar from where it was banished by Vatican 2 to a small room in the back of the church.
    But now they are messing with prayers and even including long secular poems(badly written, in my opinion) in the liturgy.

    What on earth is happening to the Catholic church?
    The priest was talking about “Social Justice” in the sermon; the Catholic church should not be concerned with social issues but spiritual issues.
    The sermon seemed more like a meeting of the Socialist Party than a traditional and inspirational spiritual sermon.

    I am very sad to see the Mass abused this way and will likely drift away from the church again; I did not feel welcome there.
    I did very much love receiving the Holy Eucharist.

    Reply
  2. wideofilmowanie polska  -  June 24, 2013 - 4:40 pm

    I’m not sure why but this web site is loading incredibly slow for me. Is anyone else having this problem or is it a issue on my end? I’ll check back later on and
    see if the problem still exists.

    Reply
  3. セイコー5 -  June 20, 2013 - 12:24 pm

    Hey there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this website before but after reading through some of the post I realized it’s
    new to me. Anyhow, I’m definitely happy I found it and I’ll be bookmarking and checking back frequently!

    Reply
  4. Sally Dekker -  March 27, 2013 - 12:01 pm

    Most of the “changes” that have been made since Vatican II to the Catholic celebration of mass were designed to make the congregation participate, think about what they were saying at mass, to renew their faith, to appeal to a younger congregation and draw them back to the church. Some of the beautiful traditions were lost, which I have great difficulty with, but it was explained to me that these were just the “trappings” of the service. Still, I love the things that made the Catholic service unique and special to me. The difference between a Catholic and Protestant service is the Holy Eucharist (Communion). Catholics believe that at the Consecration of the mass, the bread and wine actually changes into the body and blood of Christ. Protestants believe that the bread and wine are symbolic. For this reason, I truly feel the presence of God in the Catholic church. But saying the mass in English, saying different prayers and hymns (what was wrong with the ones that were sung?) that parishoners are not familiar with (supposedly, to unify the Christian faiths?) are insignificant changes that are not important. The church needs to change it’s views on Celibacy, Sex, Marriage, Divorce, the role of women in the church, Abortion (under certain circumstances), and they need to defrock any man who claims to be a priest when he abuses children & engages in other acts that no priest should. These men are criminals, not priests.

    Reply
  5. Francesca -  March 11, 2013 - 5:08 pm

    Interesting article. It’s a shame that the writing is so sloppy. You need to learn to write in a better style, otherwise you lose credibility and readership.

    Reply
  6. Robert M. -  February 8, 2013 - 4:21 pm

    I grew up Catholic in the era when mass was said in latin. I was taught that this was so that the mass would not be said in a language that was used in the street. I have drifted away from the church and would now like to come back but I am thoroughly confused by the new format and new prayers. A few years ago I had the opportunity to attend a latin mass. The priest faced the altar and communion was received at the communion rail. I used my missal dated 1941. I was printed in english and latin. I said the same prayers as the priest and was always on the right page. Todays mass seems like a protestant service.

    Reply
  7. Fred Bangeman -  January 24, 2013 - 6:25 am

    The above responses are all heartfelt and cover the breadth. God bless us all. I do not claim to know the answer(s.) While Jesus was on earth there were those who could not accept his words. Jesus asked his followers if they were going to leave, too. Peter spoke up for them all and said they would stay. They had come to believe that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. I think it is the similar in every generation. If we learn about Jesus, we are at a point where we choose to believe or not. Jesus told Peter his faith had not come from himself but had been given to him from Jesus’ Father. Abraham’s faith was given to him. Everyone who has faith is given it from above. (the Father, God.) It is not forced on us. It is freely given. If we ask for faith we will be shown the way. God’s unconditional love permits us to accept faith or reject it partially or in full. If we genuinely seek but don’t “get it,” God is merciful. He will not ZAP us and say too bad. Jesus commanded the apostles to go out and tell this Good News to all the world. Those words are spoken to all of us. Had Jesus been born in America since it was formed we would have to use many languages to tell the world. As widespread as English is it is not THE language of the world. For people to receive the word they have to understand it. Until the finding of the Qumran Scrolls the oldest texts of the New Testament part of the Bible were in Greek. Greek was the scholarly language of the time. Latin was spoken by the people of the Roman empire, a second language for some in conquered areas. Latin became the major language of the common people; they understood it. The twelve Apostles (after Judas Iscariot) and Paul traveled in all directions to proclaim the message. From the beginning they proclaimed the Word and Broke the Bread. This has been the constant, the essence. As written things are recopied and as words are passed on minute changes occur. As written and spoken words are translated nuances can be lost. The Catholic faith is based upon the tradition passed on from the Apostles and the Scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures had been explained to the men on the way to Emaus as to how they pertain to Jesus. Various letters and the Gospels were written to preserve the message when Jesus did not return as soon as people thought he would. At some point the church agreed that since there were many writings about Jesus and his message it should choose those that preserve the basic message. All Scripture is inspired by God. The church promulgated the Scriptures declared worthy of inclusion in the Bible and the passing on of the traditions. The various church councils were held to zero in on the core beliefs to express them in life in a way that relates to all people at the time – a focusing. The basic tenets or “deposit of faith” remain unchanged. From early days the people were called to worship God in community. If anyone is missing the community is less than whole. While I have participated in Mass around the world when it was all in Latin and later when there was English all over, today even when it is a language I do not understand, the Mass is the same, and I join my spirit to the spiritual offering in a way I cannot understand. I have lived and stayed close to all the changes over the past seventy years. Change is not easy. I choose to embrace it as Jesus embraced his cross, willingly but not ne essarily easily. While generations will come and go, the essence of the Faith and of the celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus in the Breaking of the Bread (Mass or Eucharist ) will essentially remain constant. The language and how we go about it may change lightly, but the principle is unchanged. The current translation brings us closer to the words from scripture. Please don’t let it get in your way. His ways are not our ways. God is God,and I am not. Not only am I not worthy for the Lord to come under my roof into my house, I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal, nor to have him come to me in Holy Communion – but that he wills to make me worthy at the moment. Gods loves us, accepts us where we are, yet always beckons us closer. If Jesus came now to hug you would anything be allowed to stand in the way? Amen.

    Reply
  8. Jim -  December 26, 2012 - 9:03 pm

    It has been over a year now and I am still unhappy about the fact that the church leaders felt the need to change the responses at Mass. Before it was more realistic and in line with modern thinking and language. For some they would find this thought scary but for me it brought me closer to God and into the Mass. I guess the church leaders felt it more important to stick to a more accurate translation than to bring the language of wording of the Mass into everyday living. I certainly don’t say, “And also with your spirit, ” when someone on the street wishes me well. I feel that when you say, “I believe”, it takes away from the community element of the Mass. And why put a word such as “consubstantial” in the Mass when “one in being” is much more understandable? When we are told to say “my soul shall be healed” it appears that we are once again splitting up the human person. What about my body and mind? Doesn’t that need healing as well? It was so much better when we said, “and I shall he healed.” It included the whole me. I guess for 20 or so years we were less authentic and misled by church leaders who felt the previous language was correct and accurate enough. How could the previous church leaders be so wrong? It appears the language of the Mass is being put back into the church building and taken out of people’s everyday life. How sad. Please forgive us Pope John XXIII. For my part I will still use the previous language responses.

    Reply
  9. Albert Nygren -  December 22, 2012 - 10:48 am

    Onbe glaring error to me is the statement that the recent changes in the Mass are claimed to be a more accurate translation of the original latin in Mass. Another statement is that Latin was always the language of the Mass until it was changed, say to English in English speaking countries..

    Mass has not always been said in Latin and Latin is not the original language of the Mass. The language of the Mass was originally Greek and was Greek and it remained Greek for the first 300 years. Sometime in the 300′s it was decided to change the language of the Mass to Latin because the common people could no longeg speak, understand, read or write, Greek.

    Reply
  10. Marcus -  October 23, 2012 - 6:45 am

    The article has some interesting points but it also contains a large number of factual errors. One glaring one is that claim that until the Mass was translate into the vernacular as a result of Vatican II Mass was always said in Latin. Misleading is the best I can say about that claim, there are parts of the Catholic world where the Mass HAS never been said in Latin and the vernacular was generally used. The claim is true (to an extent) for the Latin Church but it ignores the fact that the Catholic Church is composed of 23 particular Churches and that Latin was not the language of the liturgy in some of these.

    Reply
  11. nodnerb -  September 10, 2012 - 6:49 am

    There were many things not right with the Vatican 2 Liturgy – some of the words didn’t feel right, or a comma was in the wrong place changing the whole meaning of the phrase. Things had to be changed, but sure enough whoever was responsible for the new Liturgy they made made just as many new mistakes as in the old Liturgy.
    As our much loved Fr. Corapi once said on the subject –
    ” If you want to empty the churches, then just tinker with the Liturgy.”
    Old nick did not have to look far to find a stick to beat us with.

    Reply
  12. Joseph -  July 22, 2012 - 10:44 pm

    We need more Latin in The Church! I know this is very importent but not sure why. I am a new Member of the Church and I am still learning more. Can someone please help me on this one. Thank you

    Reply
  13. mary -  June 16, 2012 - 5:24 am

    i drew up learning just about everything in latin and i did love that. what is notice the most was when i would go on saturday’s to learn all about our teachings great, fun, very intense learning
    but the best part was if our family went out of town to another county to visit relatives we could still go on saturday’s where are relatives were without missing any teachings. you cannot do that now, there is only you do not belong to our church so you cannot learn here, also about baptisms if you do not belong to the church you cannot have your child baptized. i argued twice for my family so that i could have my nephews baptized in a church we all belong to once and it was done. just those two things stop me from going back to church, but i never once forgot where all the teachings came from, nor did i decide to join another religion just because i didnot agree with all the catholic changes in the church, and yes the catholic faith like other faiths are doing things and looking for that next dollar and how to collect it from the failthful, not to mention the problems with priests and nuns acting up and loosing their faith. we really need to get back to the basics before there is no catholic teachings or any teachings for our salvation.

    Reply
  14. Elcy -  May 24, 2012 - 11:17 am

    things to ponder
    One Catholic church ?
    why do bishops in US and Canada differ on the subject and translation ?

    why were these errors not corrected earlier.
    My guess its another money making scam

    Reply
  15. alibertarian -  May 15, 2012 - 5:38 pm

    A handful of Vatican progressives pulled a fast one on the bishops and managed to get their “mass” approved for presentation to the Aquarian generation. The damage created by that experiment proved to be a disaster with the exodus of faithful from the church and the loss of genuine priests and nuns. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Pope John originally wanted a vernacular presentation of THE MASS, not a substitute mass, not a new mass; instead, the people got a mass, not the Mass.
    Hubris did not allow anyone to admit to the mistake or that one occurred, so now they are trying to repair a faulty product. Meanwhile some followers have become attached to the Nervous Odor and its variations such as the drum mass or the clown mass (just to mention two of many) and are protesting a return to what has been prescribed by the original guidelines. Ironically, the NO people who like to preach diversity and tolerance resent the presence of a TLM in their parish for other parishioners to enjoy…… the Mass that Saints and martyrs defended and died for through thousands of years.

    Reply
  16. Elias -  April 25, 2012 - 8:50 am

    Hey, I used to have an imaginary friend too, but I grew up, and know I focus on understand how the universe really works, rather than thinking it’s magic. People like you hold back the real understanding of the universe, and in the not so far future, will be seen as a sad part of history, as the person who are not smart enough to observe and think, and understand and learn that there’s an explanation for everything, and it has nothing to do with a God.
    inb4 lol ur so ignorant jesus loves ya blah blah blah

    Reply
  17. okutaviof -  March 21, 2012 - 7:01 pm

    Suzi and Joe. Language shapes our mind. This sort of changes shape respect toward God which was lost on the first translation. You can tell that it was broken and it needed to be fixed when you notice seveal lack-of-respect sacrileges on USA masses that were not found on other countries in the world.
    If you SUZI were tradicionalist, you would’ve stick to this new corrected (and more traditional form) than the old one, which was less traditional. However, if you want to go to a more traditional one, you could always go to Tridentine Mass

    Reply
  18. sweet dictionelle -  January 31, 2012 - 11:51 am

    i agree with the first comment- thanks for the article :)

    Reply
  19. Joe -  January 6, 2012 - 9:19 pm

    I am Catholic and was “taught” Mass in the way that it was re-stated in Vatican II. Family of mine have had to go through Vatican I and Vatican II. We all agree that this new version is going to have some issues with SOME other Catholics. I personally feel though that we should have left Mass the way it was. If it was set forth to happen in the 1960s, there was probably a reason that it didn’t happen until know. Then again, I could be wrong and probably am. I am in no means a super-genius,I just miss the old version of Mass that I know better. Me and a few others in my Church still sometimes say the old version. Its much easier for kids today to learn the new version.
    Anyway, God bless you all in your life.

    Reply
  20. Suzi -  January 4, 2012 - 8:54 pm

    Since it wasn’t broke, why fix it? I have witnessed the change. It doesn’t go over well, with me, my family, nor the regulars at my church. It was as if our faith and ways were deemed not good enough for the politicians of the church. Traditions of the faithful were thrown out so some new fangled words could be put into place. We were fancy enough for Pope Benedict? Since I am a faithful and a traditionalist, I won’t be going to this new church anymore. Sadly, faithful Catholics no longer have a true church to go to.

    Reply
  21. Cliff Wilkinson -  December 20, 2011 - 10:20 am

    Reading all these comments makes me ever so glad that I no longer have any religious affiliation. That people continue to immerse themselves in such obscurantism both astounds and saddens me.

    Reply
  22. Robert Udyavar -  December 19, 2011 - 3:31 am

    I too am a Catholic but wonder whether this change in terminologies makes one a better Christian? Could the church do something better than this to increase spirituality and faith amongst the faithful?

    Reply
  23. Sammy -  December 15, 2011 - 8:22 pm

    HEADLINE: Pope Copes with Mass Mess

    Reply
  24. Tom -  December 11, 2011 - 10:19 am

    The “new” changes are embarrassing…we did come OUT of the stone age… right?

    Reply
  25. Ruth -  December 7, 2011 - 2:29 am

    @Maria- that is proof that God’s Word is truly alive! God speaks to us in amazing ways. Human beings can get things wrong (and often do), we argue about the meaning of things, but God has a way of sorting out our errors and setting us straight.

    The Bible is more than just a book written by man. Read it and see for yourself. It will come alive to you. God–not man–is in control of it.

    And for those who don’t believe me that God is alive…have you ever considered asking? You can criticize all day, but do you really want to believe in a God that can be explained? Of course not! God’s ways are beyond explanation.

    Consider Matthew 7:7, which says “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” No matter what we have done, no matter how vile, God will open the door for us if we simply ask. And ask for good things like love, wisdom, forgiveness…and they will be given to you. Read any other book and the words will not come true, but God’s Word is alive. Read it and see.

    Reply
  26. gabbie -  December 5, 2011 - 3:22 pm

    I am a catholic but i don’t agree on the norvis ordo mass,and i do not go to that mass.

    Reply
  27. up -  December 5, 2011 - 2:11 pm

    Nice article. Very interesting. I do wonder however, at how often and easily the Catholic religion can change. As a Catholic, if certain people can make changes left and right, then who (besides God) is to say what is correct to begin with? Everything is so… interpreted to begin with, that how can you take anything too literally? Just a few weeks ago in CCD, my teacher told us that most of the Old Testament is symbolic, and that Eve did not really eat an actual apple, rather… What?! I’d heard that story since I could ever remember! And for what? To find out it was a symbol to help me understand the story as a child?! How disenchanting! The only thing that I can think of that is very straightforward is The Ten Commandments. Instead of worrying over whether we say “and with your spirit,” or “and also with you,” we need to make sure we’re not stealing. Or gossiping. Or saying stuff behind people’s backs. When was the last time you volunteered? I’m not trying to be accusatory, I swear. I’m just trying to make a point. My Lutheran friends are out building houses, while I’m stuck in a classroom waiting for some kid to stop throwing paper airplanes.

    Reply
  28. Maria -  December 3, 2011 - 8:21 am

    About an hour after I finished reading your comments, it was time for our family devotions. Our book mark was at 2 Timothy 2:14-26. This passage really put this whole discussion in the proper perspective.(definitely a providential moment for me)

    Reply
  29. Bert -  December 1, 2011 - 5:51 pm

    I very well know that I have made mistakes in my arguement as well feel free to bring them up to me as I am in no way a perfect and all knowing person I would enjoy a good few corrections to what I may have incorrectly stated.

    Reply
  30. Teresa -  November 30, 2011 - 6:03 pm

    I just want to say that many of you commenters need to read the article before posting comments. If not, re-read to make sure you have a clear understanding of it before you make bold statements.
    The church is NOT changing the language back to Latin, the article was saying that the new translation is more a accurate translation of the original Latin text into an English text. So don’t say the church is being “deceiving” by changing the language because this clearly is not the case.
    Another thing, the article was wrong when it said that “invisible” and “unseen” have the same meanings. However, the Church knows that they don’t mean the same thing and that’s why they found it important to re-translate that word. So don’t argue with the Church, but with Dictionary.com or the writers of the article if you must argue.

    Reply
  31. Jeff -  November 30, 2011 - 7:08 am

    It would have been better if comments on this article were not allowed. It makes me sad that any fool with a computer can say what he/she wants and think that it actually matters. So many ridiculous comments…

    Reply
  32. Archon -  November 29, 2011 - 7:48 pm

    @ Kenneth M. Bell

    Patience! Patience! See, your article eventually popped up, unlike mine which discussed the dictionary value of terms for Sins. My sub-post, correcting a spelling error is there, but the criticism of the Catholic Church disappeared into cyber-space.

    Reply
  33. Lordforbo .A -  November 29, 2011 - 5:04 pm

    Interesting changes. Why translate from Latin? Shouldn’t they be translating from Aramaic to English if they want to conserve originality? Hope the purpose behind all this is genuine because leaders – not excluding those of the church, are good at manipulation.

    Reply
  34. a person -  November 29, 2011 - 1:59 pm

    well, ann h, this translation probably did not take up very much money because all they were doing was translating the order of the mass.

    Reply
  35. Ann Humiston -  November 29, 2011 - 10:26 am

    To “a person” – I’m so happy that this makes a “Catholic like you” feel good – a few word changes is important to you – but let’s think if we could ask God – “we have a few extra millions lying around – should we make a few Catholics like you feel good – and massage a few eqo’s in Rome or – should we feed starving children around the world – regardless of religion.”

    Well I am also Catholic – and I’m pretty sure I know what the answer would be – and if using all that money to make the world a better place isn’t a big deal to you as a Christian – then what kind of Catholoic are you?

    Ann – (also a Catholic – but maybe not for long unless someone can rationally explain to me the real purpuse of this change and the cost!! – remember who is paying for this – us!!! The entire Catholic population!)

    Reply
  36. MsWormwood -  November 29, 2011 - 8:36 am

    In the long run it does not matter, except that to me this seems to be a first step backward, a withdrawal from progress. Give it a few years and the old men in Rome will back mumbling to themselves in Latin, with their backs to the people. And the women will be kicked out. The Church as a social and political institution is beginning to crumble. The Faith will survive: Love One Another.

    Reply
  37. Doug Myers -  November 29, 2011 - 5:15 am

    Re: Kevin on November 25, 2011 at 11:24 am

    “Should the Catholic Church re-translate the Mass?”

    «No offense, but this is not the business of dictionary.com»

    Think about it, it’s a discussion about words and how they affect meaning and sense. Dictionary.com is a dictionary which by simple definition is a discussion of words and their meanings and senses. It is relevant to Dictionary’s purpose.

    Reply
  38. a person -  November 29, 2011 - 3:13 am

    Ann, this is a big deal for Catholics, like me

    Reply
  39. Archon -  November 28, 2011 - 11:23 pm

    I before E, except after “seized”.

    Reply
  40. Ann -  November 28, 2011 - 6:44 pm

    My concern is the enormous financial commitment it cost the catholic church to make what seem to be minor changes. Why isn’t any one talking about that? It’s an outrage when that money (I’m sure in the high millions) could have been spent in so many much more
    Important ways. The church is always asking the parishioners for more $$ all the time – we have no say in how it is spent. Can anyone with publishing knowledge let me know what millions of new books would cost plus distribution – not mention the gazillionan hours spent to make this happen…

    Reply
  41. a person -  November 28, 2011 - 3:28 pm

    I am sure you have heard this a thousand times before: If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all. You people that are insulting and dissing the Catholic church have to stop. Seriously, its plain mean insulting people about their religion.

    Reply
  42. earl -  November 28, 2011 - 2:40 pm

    what difference does all the above nonsense on catholic beliefs make anyway as all true believers already know that the only way to God is through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ-not counting beads or praying to Mary? If you are catholic and continue in such heretical beliefs you are just as doomed to Hell as any other unbeliever or Muslim.

    Reply
  43. Mike McKelvy -  November 28, 2011 - 12:05 pm

    I find it interesting that all the flap hardly mentions the Spirit, who was sent on Pentecost to be with us. The significant change there is “one in being” changes to “consubstantial”. BTW The fastest growing spirituality in the Church are the 5 Works of the Cross. For the Laity there is the Apostleship of the Cross. http://apcross.org/ Come and see.There are centers in many countries where prayerful people “answer the call”

    Reply
  44. ProVobis -  November 28, 2011 - 11:58 am

    Doesn’t matter whether Christ spoke Latin or not. The inscription above the cross was in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. The Latin captures the nuances of the period. And the Latin syntax is codifed and doesn’t change. Unlike English which has no ideal period which can be used as a standard. The Mass should be said in Latin, but providing modern understanding tools in the missals if we wish to follow. All the vernacular Mass does is to cause controversy and does nothing to further understanding of the Mass. Imagine the pompous outcry of the Anglophones if Shakespeare were translated into Chinese and the Chinese claim they could read Shakespeare better. The publishing companies are the only ones profitting from more and more translations.

    Reply
  45. Celina -  November 28, 2011 - 10:06 am

    I am glad that this move was made, for all the non-catholics and catholics who think that our church/religion is boring, nobody forced you or tied your hands so you can capitulate to our doctrines and beliefs. Just like any other religion, the Catholic church tries to adapt to the needs of its people, have some respect for it , if you can’t go with its flow, try not to be so obnoxious about it. We respect other religion and leave them be, and so that is how you should be with the us Roman Catholics as well. LIve and let live !!

    Reply
  46. marymoses -  November 28, 2011 - 9:07 am

    The church didn’t start with the Council of Trent, but with Jesus giving the apostles the charge to spread the Word and with His making Peter the head of the church after He went back to Heaven. We would call him the first “pope”, so the Church is more like 2000 years old, give or take, not just 1700 years old.

    Reply
  47. Greg Coker -  November 28, 2011 - 8:52 am

    Glad I’m not Catholic. Too confusing.

    Reply
  48. Bill -  November 28, 2011 - 6:12 am

    As far as this new translation of the phony 1969 mass, its only their because everyone is waking up to the fact that we have had a fake mass for the last 40 years or so. Changing a few words is just their way of dealing with the catholic counter-revolution. If they were serious they would just bring back Old Roman Rite that worked just fine for the better part of the last 2000 years. Why would the pope change a mass that had been used for for nearly 2000 years? Because Pope Paul VI was an infiltrator, an impostor, as was his predecessor John XXIII.

    Who was the lawful (though unrecognized) pope during this time? Why it was Cardinal Siri of Genoa who was elected on October 26th, 1958 when the white smoke billowed out of the Sistine Chapel for 5 minutes but was forced aside before he could appear on the balcony in St. Peter’s square. Historic footage of his election here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMtMbe6odh4

    Reply
  49. i-witness -  November 28, 2011 - 12:08 am

    translations can never be exact

    Reply
  50. Amy -  November 27, 2011 - 8:18 pm

    Oh,and by the way Jean,what ARE you smoking???

    Reply
  51. Amy -  November 27, 2011 - 8:11 pm

    Maybe the energies of the catholic church not to mention it’s monies would be better spent delving into the horrific problems of pedaphilia in it’s ranks. This is yet another smoke screen to divert attention from the cancer that has become the church.

    Reply
  52. JJ -  November 27, 2011 - 6:17 pm

    Considering the topic the majority of the comments are actually surprisingly civil. I don’t detect any intended bashing by dictionary.com. The subject was posted to draw visitors and comments, therefore it was successful. It would be impossible to explore any religion in less than a few thousand pages. I found most of the comments interesting.

    Peace everyone.

    Reply
  53. Michael K -  November 27, 2011 - 5:52 pm

    BRIEF OVERVIEW and COMMENT – Humans are a tribal species and individuals gravitate to tribes that ‘resonate’ for them. It is healthy to be a member of a ‘bigger family’ or ‘community’ as long as the ‘Tribe’ provides comfort, solace, safety and enlightenment to it’s members without exploiting them or propogating hyper-tribalism, that is, encouraging and inciting hatred and violence towards other ‘Tribes’. What inevitably happens though, since ‘power corrupts’ and the corrupt disproportionately seek and achieve power, is that Tribe Leaders DO manipulatively exploit members of their Tribe through rituals, misinformation and propoganda to achieve disproportionate CONTROL and POWER over their members and DO incite hatred and violence towards other Tribes, which leads to entrenchment of divisions between Tribes, (instead of Peace, Love and Understanding), which of course, leads to more hatred, ignorance and inevitably atrocities and evils committed against ‘rival’ Tribes. Though these ‘evil-doer’ Tribe leaders’ should be held accountable for their deliberate acts to retain and consolidate their POWER and CONTROL over their members, members are equally, if not more so, to blame for ‘buying in’ to their leaders’ manipulations of their minds and entrenching their hatred and ignorance, thus promoting and perpetuating yet more evil in the world. TO ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN GOOD over evil, and Peace, Love and Understanding, YOU have to WAKE UP and recognize your Tribal Leaders’ manipulations, hold them accountable, and WAKE UP to YOUR responsabilities to oppose divisions between people based on propoganda, ignorance and misinformation, AND uphold and support all things that promote Peace, Love and Understanding and Good over evil. All religions are tribal by definition, which can be used for Good or evil, or both. I was raised as a Catholic, and took my responsabilty as a promoter of Good over evil, to wisely reject Catholicism at a young age, having seen the hypocrisy, power controlling, manipulations, and evil atrocities committed in Jesus’ name by the Catholic church. These include: physical and cultural genocides all over the world, 10s of thousands of sexual assaults of children and women, barbaric ‘crusades’ against rival ‘tribes’, babies stolen from their mothers after birth and ‘re-assigned’, (in Spain), older children being stolen from their parents to live in ‘residential schools’, hoarding of power and wealth while people starve, and a multitude of collaborations and collusions with purely evil organizations including the Nazis. This was all done to retain POWER and CONTROL over members, (from which their Power and Wealth emanates), and obviously the greatest irony is that it is done in the name of Jesus’ teachings of Good over evil, Peace, Love and Understanding. There has to be profound ignorance and truly ‘blind faith’ to give the Catholic church any credibility as a force for Good in the world. Does anyone really think that Jesus would approve of the way the ‘Christian’ church has behaved through the ages, including the last 100 years, in his name? I believe the majority of Catholics and Christians DO mean Good for the world, but they have to WAKE UP and see the Tribal leaders for the evil that they are. I also believe most world religions are guilty of the same manipulations and atrocities as the Christian faith is. GOOD over evil in everyday life and categorical rejection, marginalization and virtual elimination of evil organizations such as many Global fundamentalist religions, is crucial for Spiritual Enlightenment and the only hope for Humanity to transcend the darkness of most of it’s history and evolve into a more Good, Just, Loving and Equitable Civilization. Thank You, Love To All.

    Reply
  54. AnWulf -  November 27, 2011 - 3:46 pm

    I’m not catholic so I don’t hav a dog in this fight so to speak. I’m only looking at for understanding and if it is eath to read and say.

    Along those lines, “maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen” is much better than “maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.”

    “When supper ended, He took the cup,” now reads, “In a similar way, when supper was ended, He took this precious chalice …” This is better?

    Same goes for “one in Being with the Father” rather than “consubstantial with the Father”. Consubstantial? What buffoon thought that was clearer?

    Reply
  55. Mike -  November 27, 2011 - 10:57 am

    Easy Shane! It is all just a superstition.

    Reply
  56. rose -  November 27, 2011 - 10:24 am

    wolsamnoraa You are so right. I am lmao.

    Reply
  57. Kenneth Maxwell Bell -  November 27, 2011 - 7:59 am

    Sad not to see the comments I posted on the subject early this morning. Were they derogatory, harmful, evil. If so, isn’t even Satan allowed to be going about doing his usual stuff?

    Then, why, obviously, my comments dumped with the garbage?!

    Reply
  58. phil -  November 27, 2011 - 7:47 am

    I don’t see how the re-translation will serve a purpose. If the re-translation serves the purpose of language accuracy then the new version should be based on Aramaic, not Latin, since its obvious that Jesus himself spoke Aramaic and not Latin. Otherwise the church is waisting time and money.

    Reply
  59. Dave -  November 27, 2011 - 7:04 am

    The changes made in the mass today are more literal translations of the original latin mass as I learned it in the early 60′s. Very little else changed. “Et cum spiritu tuo” means “and with your spirit” as opposed to “and with you also”.

    Reply
  60. Carlitos -  November 27, 2011 - 6:39 am

    Someone mentioned that the Catholic Church is always trying to convert and assimilate new believers…

    …I find it interesting that the Catholic Church’s holdings are second to none. I say crack open the Vatican Archives and let’s see how deep the rabbit hole goes. I’d bet that nothing less than the total exposure of Catholicism as a sham and a fraud to deepen the pockets of man would be revealed.

    I recommend “The Last Day” by Glenn Kleier for anyone who likes to read modern fiction on archaic beliefs, especially as relates to what I’ll call “Alcatholicism.”

    Reply
  61. Beauchesne -  November 27, 2011 - 6:23 am

    Does the new mass contain a prayer for the victims of sexual abuse by priests?

    Reply
  62. JLM -  November 27, 2011 - 3:16 am

    How can most people in America (and elsewhere, of course) still believe in a so-called “god” ???
    Why not Father Christmas ?
    Are you all still little kids ?
    I am aware that I shocked .
    Sorry.
    But I wish people were more intelligent and reasonable…

    Reply
  63. John -  November 26, 2011 - 10:43 pm

    The ROMAN Catholic Church began in 325 C.E. as Dictionary.com states and it became the state religion of Rome. Then it became the state religion of nearly all Western countries except the U.S.A. Our Constitution maintained Church/State separation because history has shown a liberal democracy is not possible with Church/State union. Even our culture and our government’s organizational model is rooted very much in the Roman Catholic Church. If anything the Roman Catholic Church is something that should not be discussed by everybody, then I am baffled. I cannot think of a subject more worthy of discussion.

    Reply
  64. Bob Beazley -  November 26, 2011 - 3:37 pm

    And you were worried about the response to ‘uppity’!

    Reply
  65. Nic -  November 26, 2011 - 1:28 pm

    @ all
    SCRIPTURES
    I DO NOT KNOW WHY EVERYONE IS CHOOSING THIS FORUM TO CRITICIZE WORDS WRITTEN BY MAN AND GOD INSPIRED! A VERY LIVELY DEBATE THOUGH;
    A BOOK CALLED THE URANTIA BOOK [ SEE http://www.urantia.org SAYS THE FOLLOWING ABOUT SCRIPTURES [ I HAVE TAKEN NON RELEVANT TEXT OUT]:
    These writings are the work of men, some of them holy men, others not so holy. The teachings of these books represent the views and extent of enlightenment of the times in which they had their origin. As a revelation of truth, the last are more dependable than the first. The Scriptures are faulty and altogether human in origin, but mistake not, they do constitute the best collection of religious wisdom and spiritual truth to be found in all the world at this time.

    Many of these books were not written by the persons whose names they bear, but that in no way detracts from the value of the truths which they contain.
    The Scriptures are sacred because they present the thoughts and acts of men who were searching for God, and who in these writings left of record their highest concepts of righteousness, truth, and holiness. The Scriptures contain much that is true, very much, but in the light of your present teaching, you know that these writings also contain much that is misrepresentative of the Father in heaven, the loving God I have come to reveal to all the worlds.

    Never forget, the Father does not limit the revelation of truth to any one generation or to any one people. Many earnest seekers after the truth have been, and will continue to be, confused and disheartened by these doctrines of the perfection of the Scriptures.

    But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret.

    The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see.

    Reply
  66. Kenneth M. Bell -  November 26, 2011 - 12:01 pm

    Words.

    Splitting hairs.

    Conformity. All those who conform are LIKE DUMB SHEEP.

    All those who dare to be different are BLACK SHEEP!

    Earlier translations don’t SOUND right now. Go in for a NEW, TRUER
    one.

    In future, today’s NEW, TRUER translation will SOUND wrong.

    Then they’ll go in for a NEWER, TRUER, more MEANINGFUL translation!

    China was lost to Christianity because ROME did not give the Jesuits, who BRIBED their way into the country, permission to use the local language for the liturgy! The proud Chinese couldn’t stand the SOUND of a foreign language in place of theirs!

    Reply
  67. Vikhaari -  November 26, 2011 - 10:44 am

    I am sorry this Vikhaari again… I notice after my posting the blue one notes 119; the deep red declares 120.
    DO you have any comment on it though the IT of University of Toronto modernity manipulation allows me to “post” something, which you, my friends, are “allowed to read.” Thank you

    Reply
  68. Vikhaari -  November 26, 2011 - 10:40 am

    It is as usual a well written piece. Very informative, interesting, yet at the same instance probably political. Then again anything and everything is necessary for sake of learning.

    Thank you Dictionary.com

    I know by now it’s annoying & tiring, yet still….I noyice today in blue it says 42 comments and so does the same no in the dark red. In the recent past I’ve seen that there had been discrepancy b/n the two #s–the dark red said one more than the blue one; it means that my comment(s) were manipulated & removed from there where it suppose to show. (Such power of manipulation!) I mentioned again & again, so many times in futility. How could any friends comment on something of mine on that what they were prevented to it, as they did b4 on a particular being on hs! Somebody said something and I referred back answering. Here we are, especially those belonging to specific race, class, COLOUR among other such, living in a particular society & its design of a system having a distinctive gaze that knows & exercises injustice and control thus….Being alone, having very little education and no knowledge of law or their heavily distinctive expertise in computer manipulation like the UofT’s IT ppl. So, I, naturally & easily vulnerable and a suitable target of their way and their making, and dependend on heavily monitoring anything and everything I do. They disabled my brand new TOSHIBA in September/October 2010; they did many things to it. Now there’s no guarantee that this one as usual they will not be intercepted, inspected and discarded at their whim.

    Mdnt (from Midnote like footnote) their = The highly educated authority of University of Toronto.

    Reply
  69. monique -  November 26, 2011 - 10:00 am

    This is actually wonderful.
    Seeing how different individuals comment on the article and others reacting to their comments.
    Keep it up.God bless you all.

    Reply
  70. BIAM -  November 26, 2011 - 9:34 am

    JEAN KING – - “WHAT IN THE ‘H E L L’ ARE YOU ON!!!???

    Reply
  71. Scott Hill -  November 26, 2011 - 9:23 am

    The next council after Trent was not 400 years later at Vatican II, but 300 years later at Vatican I. It’s not difficult to look up the 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church.

    Reply
  72. wolsamnoraa -  November 26, 2011 - 8:35 am

    Who would have thought the Catholic church could find a way to be even more boring?

    Reply
  73. Tom Walsh -  November 26, 2011 - 8:35 am

    What most non-Catholics or nominal Catholics fail to get is that it doesn’t matter what I think. Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.

    Reply
  74. Mike -  November 26, 2011 - 8:32 am

    The Church is modifying the liturgy to be more true to the practices of pre-Vatican II. As part of the changes post Vatican II, part of the “Spirit” was lost in translation. In order to get back to the “Spirit” the language is being adjusting to bring back that aspect. I suspect the Church is praying the “return” to the pre-Vatican II mass will bring the faithful back to a stronger sense of the “Spirit” of the Liturgy.

    Reply
  75. Most Rev. Roger LaRade, O.F.A. -  November 26, 2011 - 8:30 am

    What a poorly written article. The Mass is not being changed for the third time. What is happening this First Sunday of Advent is that a new, more fauthful, official English translation of the official and normative Latin text of the Mass is being introduced into use.

    Reply
  76. Joe -  November 26, 2011 - 8:18 am

    I appreciate the objective journalism in this article. So often news outlets are more interested in downing the Catholic Church, and this is a good example of just presenting the facts in a readable way. The agendas of the NY Times, CNN and MSNBC are obvious these days, and you have surpassed them.

    Reply
  77. michael -  November 26, 2011 - 8:10 am

    Attached to this comment is a much better explanation of why the Church went with literal translation, rather than with dynamic equivalent. While it may be “clunkier”, the meaning of the prayer comes alive when you realize that it comes from the Bible. The Mass is a biblical prayer.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue4GaotluU4

    Reply
  78. Phinamaria -  November 26, 2011 - 8:07 am

    Why is everyone making such a big deal over such a little matter. The mass is in many different languages. The Translation that is coming out is just a more direct translation from the OLD LATIN; therefore, it is the same a the Tridentine Mass 100s of years old. The media just likes to plant things that are not true. If you know the Latin text ( like I do ) it is exactly the same. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. i.e. The Latin says “Credo” in the beginning of the Creed. The Vatican 2 translation is “We believe” but credo means “I”; therefore, the new translation into English is “I believe”. Is that a be deal? NO! As I said before the media likes to blow everything out of proportion. A

    Reply
  79. michael -  November 26, 2011 - 8:05 am

    “The major change initiated by Vatican II was to translate the traditional Latin mass into the vernacular.”

    This is entirely untrue. The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) issued many documents on a wide range of topics. All of these documents either reaffirmed current teaching or urged the Church to become a more evangelical institution. While allowing the mass to be in the vernacular did result, I would not call it “the major change” of Vatican II. This a gross over-generalization.

    For a list of the documents of Vatican II, please visit: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/

    Reply
  80. LukeJavan -  November 26, 2011 - 8:00 am

    I agree with Kevin above. This is not the business of Dictionary.com.
    The Catholic Church is not changing, it is simply going back.
    The “new” translation was the first, then they changed it. And too
    many people have left the church because of the changes.
    Instead of admitting they were wrong, they are going backwards and
    making it look like it is “new”.

    Reply
  81. Michael Knight -  November 26, 2011 - 7:24 am

    its, not it’s. DOh.

    Reply
  82. Michael Knight -  November 26, 2011 - 7:23 am

    A revolting cult changes it’s official language. Thanks for the heads up.

    Reply
  83. Jax -  November 26, 2011 - 7:18 am

    Right on Tammy!

    Why aren’t they translating the original scripture? The wording of the Aramaic documents must represent the intent as it was set down. The Vulgate (Latin) is probably riddled with the politics of the fourth century Catholic Church during the Council of Nycea, when the whole body of Christianity came together as one to define the belief for Constantine, and then became factionalized over the details.

    Even the modernization will reflect the twenty-first century outlook. Why not spring from the original Biblical outlook, and minimize the sidetracking, the politics, the factionalizing?

    Reply
  84. Danice -  November 26, 2011 - 7:16 am

    I had to read this article twice, in part because the first sentence confused me as to if they were changing it into English or if they were changing it in the specific vernacular being English. It makes sense in many ways since English is becoming an international language, the way that French and German were once, but even if they translate into English and attempt to make it ring true in translation, they will eventually find that they will have to update over time any how, because language is constantly evolving, words change meaning and so on and so forth. Interesting article nevertheless in regards to living language.

    Reply
  85. sheeba -  November 26, 2011 - 7:16 am

    thank you. good article.. i dont really agree with the language change.. why now.. people might not all withstand these changes..

    Reply
  86. RLW -  November 26, 2011 - 7:00 am

    Critiques of writing are dangerous business! “Translations are as common as translators.”

    Reply
  87. Jason -  November 26, 2011 - 6:56 am

    I kind of think everyone needs to chillax a little bit. I dont think dictionary.com was trying to bash the catholic church, nor were they trying to teach a history class on the church. They were merely illustrating the affects of translations and the problems and interests that they cause. Getting all worked up over miniscule details only draws away from the purpose of this article and confuses people.

    Reply
  88. ijil RHG -  November 26, 2011 - 6:55 am

    @Victoria ~ if you are even still in this discussion ~
    In the beginning was the word, simply refers to the power of the word, word being the written law. Just as today, maybe you have heard said, “It does not matter what you say, it matters what is written.” and “Be sure to get that in writting.” For many societies it is more important what is written than what is said. There is no proof (something that can been seen by all) is it is just what is said, but if it is written well then there is a record.
    Some People tend to believe more if something is in writting. In today’s world many people can write and read, this of course has not always been the case. In fact, for most of history there were only a few who could write and read, a very select few. And for years after many men were taught to read, for women it was still deemed unneccessary and a waste. Maybe you will recall this fact from your earlier studies.
    Maybe this will help to get your mind juices churning about how important “the word” or “the law” is.

    @Kris ~
    translate back to Greek instead of Latin ~ excellent question.
    the reason not to translate back to Greek is several-fold. One being that some of the ancient Greek, really ancient Greek (pre 1800 BCE) is still not known by us today, we have yet to crack the code (linear A and linear B). But besides not knowing how to translate these very early pieces, there is the understanding that translating back to the Greek (or even Aramic languages) would lead directly into the knowledge that many of the writtings of the current bible are knock offs of earlier existing myths in other already existing religions (call them cults if it makes you feel better), and this would be deterimental to the authority of the current churches.
    Translating back to Greek would also lead right back into the ancient world the current currents have taken people away from. Study the oracles of the ancient worlds (on every continent), Mycenne and Etrusican cultures (early Greek societies), ancient society structures (before 2000 BCE), old stone remains and other spiritual understandings that existed before 1500 BCE. This is ancient world history that is still suffering from extreme and premediated genocide (observe the word wars on Wikipedia and even on this little forum).
    BTW ~ there is no wrong way to worship ~ that is a manmade/judgement thing.

    @Chris ~
    yes, getting a poet to write anything is better than pure translation. Oral cultures use sing-song lines to help the knowledge stay longer with the people. Poetry is the language of the soul.

    @Wash Phillips ~
    maybe this understanding is beyond you at this time… that is alright. seen/unseen ~ visible/invisable. get it?

    good conversation.
    Trust Your Journey
    ~ijil RHG

    Reply
  89. Nic -  November 26, 2011 - 6:29 am

    Religion consists not in theologic propositions but in spiritual insight and the sublimity of the souls trust…

    You know what you know is true for you…

    Reply
  90. JJ in Chula Vista, CA -  November 26, 2011 - 6:23 am

    This article is about language, words, and the stuff of thought; about how meaning is affected by subtle changes in language over time and about whether people choose to embrace or cast those changes aside. It wasn’t written to affirm or negate the beliefs of the Catholic Church nor the beliefs of the church’s members. Dictionary.com deals with the very essence of communication, and, as in the past, has brought us an article about the specific way in which words and language have an astounding affect on the human condition.

    Reply
  91. Venia -  November 26, 2011 - 6:19 am

    I think many people here are wrong: it’s not about going to “the real Arameic origins” of the texts, it’s about to unify what’s said in mass on every country around the world. For example, something like this was done in Latin America some decades ago: each country had his own Our Father prayer’s translation. What the Vatican did was to set a unique Our Father prayer in Spanish, so as to avoid different “versions”. And the “new” Spanish version was translated from the Latin version, which was chosen as a base for all Catholic prayers, because it’s more solid than the Greek or Arameic.
    That’s being done, now, all over the world, and I think -although we’re saying the same- it will be more clear to have only one way of saying the prayers.
    A clear example which shows that this works is that someone said some posts ago “Interesting. Now it sounds more like the mass in Spanish.”, which is because it sounds as the Latin version, which’s been prayed for a thousand years all over the world.

    Reply
  92. steve -  November 26, 2011 - 6:11 am

    Keep the children home.

    Reply
  93. Carl -  November 26, 2011 - 6:02 am

    Words, no doubt, are important, but more important is practice in everyday living. Will Christians speak differently in worship and nothing will change in everyday living and practice? If so, it is business as usual with most Christians.

    Reply
  94. Supreme -  November 26, 2011 - 5:53 am

    The Catholic Church is responsible for changing the Sabbath from the seventh day (Saturday) to Sunday, to appease popular culture and claim God’s authority as their own. The original text was NEVER in Latin.

    Once again the pride of men prove to be ignorant and blasphemous in doing things how THEY want, and not how the Father has directed us.

    Do your own thorough research and DO NOT rely just on what is told to you. It is highly important we all understand fully what the Father and the Word tells us.

    Reply
  95. Sunil Sharma -  November 26, 2011 - 5:33 am

    Same hearts with changed languages does not matter. The God Almighty hears only sounds of heart instead tongue. Remember that as parents don’t care what their kids are saying but they can feel kid’s emotion strongly without hearing a single word. Be either a true parent or a true child. Both are ways to reach the Holy Christ.

    Reply
  96. chris -  November 26, 2011 - 5:33 am

    well interesting but it’s not a new language. it is also misleading to mention ‘First here’s a brief history of the Catholic Church. The Church and its sacred documents were codified at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and it didn’t really change for 1200 years.’ before the schism of the christian faith there was no catholic orthodox or the later protestantism… there fore it should have been noted for this purpose – article, that the history of the roman catholic church begins with the schism

    Reply
  97. Kevin Farmer -  November 26, 2011 - 5:14 am

    It would certainly be wonderful to have a translation faithful to the original, however Jesus (who may well have spoken Greek as well as Aramaic [ there were many Hellenised Jews in Palestine]) didn’t write down his gospels so we cannot have an original. The earliest relatively complete ‘bible’ we have is the Codex Sinaiticus in Alexandrian Greek, but this was not written until the fourth century so probably contains errors/additions accumulated over several hundred years. There have from the earliest times been a variety of alternative ways of interpreting the words of Jesus even within the Gospels and later, what the Catholic church called heresy, or Protestantism. The Church should always examine what it is trying to convey: the language of the mass isn’t simply a method of passing on information. People do need to understand what they are saying but it should not be prosaic but flow poetically, it should be reverential and solemn and, yes, have an element of mystery. The meanings of words do change as does our understanding of Jesus’ intentions for us as we develop and we have to make adjustments for this.
    We could say “things we can see and things we can’t see” but “seen and unseen” is simpler, “visible and invisible” might suggest something magical nowadays; how about “known knowns and unknown unknowns…”
    BTW Chris F, you missed out the Coptic Pope, Shenouda III

    Reply
  98. Lampros Pelekanos -  November 26, 2011 - 5:03 am

    Actually, the birthday of the Church is the Pentecost, which took place 50 days after the Resurrection. The Roman Catholic Church though was created officially in 1054, when the Great Schism happened. The original Church, that which began in the Pentecost, is known today as the Orthodox Catholic Church, or Easter Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church that is written in the Nicene Creed refers to that Church, which head was the Pentarchy, and not the Roman Catholic Church, as many people believe, which didn’t exist at the time of the First Ecumenical Council, and which head is the bishop of Rome.
    As for the translation, I believe that there is no sacred language other than the language of the people. Thankfully the Roman Catholics saw that and they adapted. Unfortunatelly, in my country, Greece, the Orthodox Church use the original texts written in Common Greek (the language of the New Testament) and in Classical Greek (the language of Plato and Aristotle, which was used by most of the Church Father and is the official language of the Greek Orthodox Church). So, every Sunday, the 90% of the people who go to church are old people, and the 10%(or less) are people less than 40 years old. Very few of them (if any) undestand what they hear. They just go due to habit, or because they really try to get close to God, even with the use of Ancient Greek. The result is a Church created only for theologians and filologists, only for the educated. The common people just can’t reach God through the Church, because of the stupidity and retrogression of the majority of the theologians and bishops.
    Latin and Ancient Greek are both translations, since Jesus used Aramaic. But the Apostles used the language of the people to write the Gospels and the Epistles. John, especially, used a more common form of Greek than the others. Still, he was given the name Theologian, because even though he didn’t use the more formal form of Greek as Paul did, he said the greatest truths. Imagine what would have happened if Paul, for example, used Aramaic when he wrote to Corinth, or spoke Aramaic at the Areopagus.
    So, yes, I think the Roman Caholics did a great Job translating the texts from Latin to vernacular language.
    Thank you for your time.

    Reply
  99. ccrow -  November 26, 2011 - 5:02 am

    Your links are not working for me.

    Reply
  100. Linda Deahl -  November 26, 2011 - 4:50 am

    The point of the changes goes beyond the language to the re-directing of the Mass to it’s proper vertical direction (the worship of God) from the erroneous horizontal direction ( the worship of each other) foisted upon us by liturgists who thought they had a better idea. Jesus said “I call you my friends.” He did not say “I call you my equals,” which is what maverick priests, religious, and liturgists claim. A Manhattan exec can be friends with his doorman. They can call each other by name, inquire about family, etc. But they are NOT social equals. We are at Mass to worship as grateful sinners who have received the mercy of an all-holy God. We come to adore, express our contrition, thank, and ask for His help. We MUST be more concerned for our souls, than for our feelings, which change continually. And the social justice issues which so often supplant the worship of God, flow NATURALLY from the proper expression of the Faith. When the Mass is lifted up with a sense of what is happening on the altar, with a contrite heart, when the Mass is lived and not checked at the door for next Sunday, miracles occur in hearts, minds , societies. Read the writings of the Early Fathers of the Church…the contemporaries of the Apostles. You will be astounded to see that the worship of God, from the time of the very first Christians, was the Catholic Mass which has survived for over 2,000 years.

    Reply
  101. Sam -  November 26, 2011 - 4:13 am

    Grew up in the catholic church. Crowned Mary in May when I was in the orphanage. Went to church every day. Found out rituals, sacraments and good works “Will Never” get me to heaven. It is only through Faith In Jesus Christ alone. Read Your BIBLES people!!! There is a hell and not everyone is going to heaven. Jesus says: “But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it”. (Matt 7:14). and “No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6). Please read there is a Hell and It Is real…!!! There are over one billion Catholics in the world who errantly believe that the Catholic Church is going to save them. Roman Catholics do not trust Jesus Christ alone; but rather, rely upon manmade traditions and self-righteous works to save them. According to the Word of God, genuine Catholics are hellbound in their sins because they are trusting in self-righteousness (Romans 3:20; 10:3-4; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). Jesus said in Luke 13:24 that “many” will seek to enter into Heaven but will not be able. That is quite startling. Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 7:21-23 . . .PLEASE READ YOUR BIBLE FOR YOURSELF>>>Do not trust in man for your salvation…..
    I love you all…..God Bless You….Im just a little country girl with a Love For My Jesus……

    Reply
  102. Anonymous -  November 26, 2011 - 4:02 am

    Please do not feed the trolls, (Kevin and Nancy Orlando) thank you.

    Reply
  103. Coastranger -  November 26, 2011 - 3:59 am

    Hot Word,
    When it comes to the history of the Catholic Church, this is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. One could hardly make up something so laughably distorted.

    Reply
  104. ramon jacinto -  November 26, 2011 - 3:46 am

    sun sun sun sun sun sun here they come………

    Reply
  105. Michael Demers -  November 26, 2011 - 3:40 am

    For more precision and accuracy consult the Catholic Encyclopedia.
    The mass has been changed many times, not just three times.
    What sacred documents? Only the Bible is sacred.
    There have been many councils.
    The Church spoke Greek before it spoke Latin.
    Some people would call the Reformation a revolution.
    The Vulgate was accepted by the Church as the authorized Latin version.
    If we lived in a perfect world translations wouldn’t be necessary.

    Reply
  106. Andrew -  November 26, 2011 - 2:53 am

    This was an interesting article about an interesting religion. Like every religion, there’s no point looking for any literal truth: the first gospels were only written a generation after the events that supposedly happened, based on hearsay and metaphor, by people who weren’t even there, so there’s clearly no evidence for believing that either the bible or the mass is based on anything real. I’m glad to see the council of Nicaea mentioned. Many christians haven’t heard of this. I’m surprised to see more people don’t know Jesus was elected as son of god there. There was a dispute as to whether he was really the son of god or just a prophet, so they took a vote. That was probably the last democratic thing catholicism ever did.

    But like I say, a fascinating article. The question is why they bothered? Religion is in terminal decline. Science can answer virtually all the questions religion used to answer much more convincingly and it’s getter better all the time. Rewriting the mass in the 21st century would be like a blacksmith, fletcher or cooper getting a website. There is no benefit in bringing the irrelevant up to date.

    Reply
  107. Marc -  November 26, 2011 - 2:52 am

    My old Italian cello teacher used to tell me “Tradutore traditore” (hopefully I spelled that right) which means “The translator is a traitor” – i.e. no translation really means exactly what the original meant. I could care less about the Catholic Church, as it’s the foundation of my beliefs that everyone should have the right to believe as they choose. But the subject under discussion here is (or should be) focused on the language subject – is the translation a.) necessary and b.) accurate.

    Reply
  108. Jason -  November 26, 2011 - 2:00 am

    @Nancy Orlando,

    There’s no Catholic bashing going on in this article. Seems like you are upset because they didn’t adamantly declare that all Christianity should bow down to the pope. I’d encourage you to put less focus on how you believe history played out and more focus on Jesus’ words. He didn’t declare Peter pope so that we could start looking to Peter and not Himself. Do a word study on “rock” and “stone” in the old and new testaments and you’ll see that in every case it refers to God who is the author of salvation, never man.

    If our our spiritual direction was really dependent on Peter and his successors we should be really scared because Peter opposes Jesus just a few verses after Jesus talks about building his church and calls him Satan. Then Peter denies Christ, then in Galatians 2 Paul has to rebuke Peter because he stands condemned for practicing a false gospel. Whether you look to Peter, the pope, your priest, or anyone else apart from Christ or God’s Holy Word you stand on shaky ground and are putting your confidence in fallible men rather than a perfect and holy God.

    It’s this blind confidence that so many Catholics have put in the broken system of Roman Catholicism that has allowed events like the crusades, corrupt political strides for power and wealth, sexual abuse of thousands of children, and billions of people who look to men and an organization rather than their Lord and Savior. I’ll stop here.

    As a former Catholic, now follower of Christ, I know firsthand the pride that is in every Catholic and the arrogance that one is superior (I was once full of it myself). It’s interesting that Catholics are quick to call others Catholic bashers or anti-Catholic when they have a history of killing opposition, continue to stand by councils that officially damn to Hell those that disagree, and they look down on other faiths that don’t submit to the pope and exalt Mary. It’s with concern for you and reverence for biblical truth that I write all of this. Check out this link, http://pro-gospel.org/articles/102-are-catholics-deceived

    Reply
  109. Alex -  November 26, 2011 - 1:41 am

    As some other Spanish speakers have posted, I would like to point out that many of the new adopted English words have the same root as the words used in the mass in Spanish. A large percentage of words in the Spanish language, similarly to French, is of Latin origin. Since the new translation came from the Latin mass, this is the expected result. Initially, this common use of Latin-based words in the mass across languages that have them seem like a good thing. However, just because there is a latin-based word in English does not necessarily make it better for what it is trying to be said in the mass in English. From this, one could infer that the new English words have been chosen by people who’s first language is not English and believe that English words that have similar Latin-rooted words will convey the same meaning as in the other languages. We know as examples, the Saxon-based words, like increase, whole, ask, and need are of more natural use than the latin-based counterparts, like augment, entire, enquire and require respectively. The meaning of these counterpart words has very often subtle differences. Moreover, the actual meaning, how it is used and the sentiment of identically latin-rooted words may vary from language to language. So choosing latin-based words other than just being closer to latin is non-sense. Having the additional high proportion of Saxon-rooted words makes the English language richer (which has the effect of making it more difficult to learn and to higher levels of illiteracy) and more expressive (but not necessarily in all contexts) than the Romance languages which should be the aim for the mass. I believe that the real reason behind the changes is because it is more in line with the theology of the previous and the current popes (very conservative – to be discussed else where.) The change that I most dislike is the response “and also with you” to “and with your spirit”. I find the former theologically better because it encompasses the whole of the human being and not just the spirit, i.e. Mathew vs Luke. Another opportunity that was missed is that the word “ men” in the creed could have been omitted or replaced by “all” instead which already was being done before the changes were implanted.

    Reply
  110. peter1589 -  November 26, 2011 - 1:19 am

    Errrrrmmm … considering that there are over 38,000 different PROTESTant sects (read: heresies), and that the Catholic Church has been the only institution extant since the time of Jesus Christ, and that the Catholic Church has been the only barrier against the spread of western civilization’s archenemy of Islam, and that now all of PROTESTant, secular Europe is going belly up (save Geert Wilders incredible opposition) to Islam with over 54 million Muslims already invaded there (in very interesting comparison to the over 54 million abortions here in the US), THEN WHAT IS DICTIONARY.COM’S INTEREST IN EVEN BROACHING THE TOPIC OF CATHOLICISM???

    Quiet down, dictionary.com!! Satan is liable to get REALLY angry that you may be converting people to the only Church which has ALL the Sacraments necessary for salvation. (Remember the 10 virgins who didn’t have enough oil and couldn’t get into the feast, now!) After all, you can’t kill the Church, that much has been proven for the past 2,000 years. But if you dare to convert someone from their inviolable egocentric resistant to Truth, there will be Hell to pay! Tread softly! And start praying the St. Michael chaplet if you really think you can keep it up! You’ll need it! God bless.

    Reply
  111. Lazaro Ramos -  November 26, 2011 - 1:03 am

    I would like to note that the fact that the new missal is entitled the “Third Edition of the Roman Missal” in no way implies that this is simply the third time that the Mass has been “changed.”
    In essence, what it “the Mass,” and what does it mean to change “the Mass”?
    From the fact that the word “Mass” isn’t even really a word, perhaps it’d be more of a quest for dictionary.com to look into that history, and to discover why the Mass, over more than 2000 years, has essentially never changed.
    (To give a hint: the answer involves “Ite missa est,” and even the history of the Canon. Whether you believe what Catholics believe or not, it is pure ignorance to deny that the Catholic Holy Mass has a meaning for which it is and was and always will be intended.)

    Reply
  112. Sofi Pirul -  November 26, 2011 - 12:38 am

    Charles F is right. The Christian narrative takes shape several decades after the purported events. The Dead Sea Scrolls were indeed written at the time of mentioned in the narrative. Interestingly, there is no mention of Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls, nor in any of the writings of the time.

    The books in the Old and New testament are written in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine (a dialect of Greek). None of the books is written in Latin, so there are no Latin “originals”. They are all translations.

    Reply
  113. Morpeus Neo -  November 26, 2011 - 12:37 am

    If the genuine intention is to move closer to original texts, isn’t that we cannot find the very basic word Catholic in the Bible as the original name of the Church, founded by our Lord Jesus Christ??? I was once a choir member of the Catholic Church, but in relation to textual meaning, mass has so many things to revise / change for our righteous worship services…

    I do hope Catholic leaders may also consider to review its teachings which contradict to what are actually written…

    May we follow our Ever-Loving Father based on what are really written and not based on tradition / promulgation by religious leaders of the past…

    Reply
  114. G. Kevin Pfeiffer -  November 26, 2011 - 12:08 am

    Ms. Orlando [cf., her comments, above] did a generally fine job of detailing some of the inaccuracies and limitations of the article. The one, glaring misstatement which really struck me was the blatant error that the Catholic Church is only 1700 years old! As Ms. Orlando rightfully stated, the Church traces its roots back to Christ, Himself, NOT to the First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. However, it should be pointed out that the “birthday” of the Church is recognized as fifty days after Easter when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles on Pentecost, NOT when Our Lord commissioned Saint Peter as the first pope [cf., the future tense of the verb used in the latter: “...and on this rock, I WILL build My Church....” Matthew 16:18b].
    Another bothersome point that “jumped off the page” at me while I was reading the article was the comment that “…The Church doesn’t hold very many of these councils, after the Council of Trent, the next one was 400 years later when Pope Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (also called Vatican II)….” Besides the fact that the Church has actually held the goodly number of TWENTY-ONE general councils in its almost 2,000-year history, the next major assembly which followed Trent was the FIRST Vatican Council, held in 1869-70, NOT Vatican II. (One would think the article’s author would have had a “clue” that there had been a council BETWEEN Trent and Vatican II by the very fact that the latter is called Vatican TWO [...or, the SECOND Vatican Council]!)
    It is carelessness such as the points noted above (…as well as those mentioned by Ms. Orlando…) which serve to weaken the usefulness of the article as an accurate source of information about the Mass and the changes to it which go into effect tomorrow, on the First Sunday of Advent, the beginning of a new Church Year. As such, that is sadly regrettable — especially given the wide exposure the article will receive as part of the opening page of both the “Dictionary.com” and “Thesaurus.com” Web sites.
    Happy New Year!

    Reply
  115. Robert -  November 26, 2011 - 12:01 am

    It saddens me that the Roman Church has abandoned the ecumenically-agreed common texts which most mainline Churches have shared for the last few decades. I absolutely love Latin, but I think the new translation is horrid. Whatever possessed the translators to think that the word ‘chalice’ was an improvement on ‘cup’ (especially when Jesus couldn’t possibly have taken a chalice in the way we understand that word today) is beyond me. it sounds ridiculous, not mysterious. ‘Consubstantial’, though a lovely word, will be misunderstood by most English-speaking Catholics, I suspect.

    What has just struck me with even more horror than the prissy, latinified English, is the capitalization in, for example, “In a similar way, when supper was ended, He took this precious chalice in His holy and venerable hands.” Perhaps the Roman Rite in force till today had He/His but I suspect it didn’t.

    I’d be really interested to know if Dictionary.com can tell us when the practice of giving God and Jesus capital H’s (and the even more ghastly – imho – Y’s for You and Yours). Neither Greek (the language of the New Testament) nor Latin (the language of Western Christianity) capitalize in such cases. Nor indeed does the Authorized Version (a.k.a. the King James Version) of the Bible published 400 years ago, or reputable modern translations like the New Revised Standard Version.

    Where does this practice come from? Is it a Victorian form of (fake) piety that endures in some sections of the Church to this day?

    Reply
  116. Cecilia -  November 25, 2011 - 11:51 pm

    @ Nancy Orlando, thank you. I agree with you.

    Reply
  117. oldmandaft -  November 25, 2011 - 11:41 pm

    Looks like the huguenot are still trying to rewrite their history.

    Reply
  118. Andrew -  November 25, 2011 - 10:33 pm

    Interesting, I had not heard that they were re-doing the English translation of the mass. But what no one has pointed out, and is missing in this article, is that the Novus Ordo Missae or “New Order of the Mass”, which is the mass that is said in Catholic churches all over the world, is NOT the old Tridentine mass simply translated from Latin into English. It is a radical departure from that mass which, with slight variations, had been said for many many centuries until codified at the Council of Trent in the late 1500s. The “New Mass” is much more than just a translation. So, the order of business was that first, the ancient and holy mass was changed, and THEN it was translated into the vernaculars of many languages. What resulted was a modern tower of Babel and an end to the universality of worship.

    Reply
  119. Archon -  November 25, 2011 - 10:24 pm

    Bye bye Nancy Orlando. Don’t let the door of knowledge and thought hit you on your narrow-minded, Bible-thumping butt, on the way out.

    Reply
  120. Christopher Schwinger -  November 25, 2011 - 10:23 pm

    I’ve wondered for a long time when the Mass stopped being exclusively Latin. Now I know!

    Reply
  121. ken -  November 25, 2011 - 10:02 pm

    in earlier church, there is the priesthood of everyone.
    today, there is the institutional church.

    Reply
  122. Mark -  November 25, 2011 - 9:38 pm

    Much of the bible was originally written in ggreek, not latin. Paul was an educated man. So were many of those who contributed to the letters and other pieces that now comprise our cannon. Some were written in syriac. Others in coptic. The Latin vulgate (common latin) came later. Thr old testament was in hebrew.the dead sea scrolls, were copies of the old testament, not the new.
    We have only the copies, of copies of copies for the first 300 years or so. Almost always done by barely literate people with a barely useful ability to copy shapes. Let alone create a document. Mistakes, errors, mis translations or deliberate changes are common. I don’t really care what the catholic church does. But this is just silly. How can the church correct “mistakes” in a document that they do not know the actual contents of.

    Reply
  123. Jojo -  November 25, 2011 - 9:16 pm

    I’m a Filipino Catholic. We Filipinos usually pray in a variety of languages and dialects (Filipino or other dialects, English, and even Latin). I think it is just a matter of believing that a prayer recited with faith in one language is just as effective as one spoken in another tongue.

    Reply
  124. Tam -  November 25, 2011 - 9:04 pm

    Okay, seen and unseen do NOT have the same meaning, I know that, and yes I am Catholic- BUT, this article was not a full article (it’s just a brief overview- not a infallible and complete explanation) and was written for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. If this article had all that you seem to want in it, it would be pages long and certainly not be a simple overview that explains to people why the mass is being changed when such a thing is so rare! And yes, I realize there are a few little mistakes (and you must understand that humans are incapable of writing something completely free of bias), but they aren’t bashing Catholics, that much is obvious.

    Reply
  125. Joseph -  November 25, 2011 - 8:57 pm

    To those who would ask why Latin was used I would suggest the reason might be because of how precise that language is. Also, that the Mass was translated into English for English-speaking people seems to make sense. Furthermore, if the English translation was tweaked in generations past in an attempt to present Catholic beliefs more clearly down through the centuries from Aramaic or whatever to English that too seems to make reasonable sense. Still further, if a new translation were implemented at any time and failed to impart a more thorough understanding to Catholics it would stand to reason that any failure would only become apparent over time as the generations of Church members became less acutely instructed/aware which would manifest in their own speech and actions if only to those who have formal training in the original languages used which would then lead to the re-adoption of an earlier translation or some other derivative in an attempt to restore what was lost. That Dictionary.com would show an interest in the language and word use of a sizable chunk of the world population seems also to make sense. I do not know what the Catholic Church itself teaches or preaches but it does not seem to demand its members to convert people or kill them as is written into Islamic laws. There may be Muslims who do not agree with that teaching but the belief system they choose to hold to does and how can we tell which ones do agree and will or have killed? And now on television in America we show a program called “Islamophobia” about how peaceful they are and how it is silly or prejudicial and anti- American/ unconstitutional to fear their beliefs and growing numbers in our country or try to stop them. Forget that In 1400 years, there has never been a system of Islamic law that did not prescribe the death penalty for any Muslim choosing to leave Islam. Even in modern, ostensibly secular Islamic countries with constitutions “guaranteeing” freedom of religion, there is de facto enforcement of this law with intimidation and the occasional murder of apostates. A sound philosophy never requires violence or threats to retain believers. Contemporary Muslim apologists thus find it embarrassing that their religion (and theirs alone) endorses killing over a change in opinion. As such there are various tricks played to deny or explain away this weak and draconian which is so well-ensconced in Islamic tradition. Such defenders usually quote verse 2:256 to Western audiences. The verse states “Let there be no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out from error.” They may also include a fragment of verse 10:99-100, “Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?” What they don’t say is that nearly all Muslim scholars agree that both verses were spoken by Muhammad during an earlier time in his teachings, when he did not have the power to compel others. They are abrogated by later verses, such as verse 9:29, which clearly commands Muslims to fight unbelievers until they relent and either accept Islam or a state of humiliation under Islamic rule (an obvious illustration of compulsion). Some might hate Christians and their attempts to convert but they do not physically threaten our lives if we won’t join them like Islam as a whole does. Let’s talk about that instead!

    Reply
  126. Geneva Ayte -  November 25, 2011 - 8:44 pm

    FRAN: I AM INTRIGUED BY YOUR COMMENT. I AM WONDERING WHAT YOUR PERSONAL STORY IS, I.E., WHAT TURNED YOU, OBVIOUSLY A BAPTIZED CATHOLIC, SO SOUR? PERHAPS IN THE FUTURE WHEN YOU ARE AGAIN IN THE MOOD TO MALIGN THE RELIGION OF YOUR BIRTH, YOU WOULD KINDLY PREFACE THE INSULT WITH THE DETAILS OF YOUR VERY PERSONAL GRIPE. Thank you, Fran.

    Reply
  127. Rustgold -  November 25, 2011 - 8:43 pm

    Wow, some of the comments here is proof that religious discussion encourages moronic statements.
    Funny considering that this blog is better than some seen here recently.

    Reply
  128. Geneva Ayte -  November 25, 2011 - 8:39 pm

    Kari: Obviously, when you “used to go” to the Catholic Church, you didn’t hear the old words, either. I assume you will not grasp the irony herein.

    Reply
  129. Juan P -  November 25, 2011 - 8:20 pm

    Thanks for the article and all your blogs. It is intere-santissimus. Also when you refer words belonging other cultures, languages, religions, traditions, any newness. Every word and every sound make music for our ears.
    Nothing is completed, neither wikipedia. We all can enrich one another.
    A very merry new text Christ-Mass and a happy new liturgical year.
    Marana Tha.

    Reply
  130. Daisy -  November 25, 2011 - 8:12 pm

    Hi, changes always have two responses, good & bad. So lets hope for the first response. Great!

    Reply
  131. Anonymous -  November 25, 2011 - 8:06 pm

    It accidentally says “Pope” twice! Great going with the grammar!

    Reply
  132. Ron -  November 25, 2011 - 7:56 pm

    All I can say is I am glad I am a former catholic and away from all its nonsense.

    Reply
  133. Alex -  November 25, 2011 - 7:43 pm

    Think that people need to keep the bible on the shelf and start picking up more veridical texts.
    The Old Testament has been demolished factually and the New Testament isn’t any better.
    Curiosly, the Catholic Church has been proven to change at whim.
    Anyone remember purgatory and limbo being added? Seems a bit odd that people who still follow the same basic doctrine end up coming up with extremely variegated differences.
    Then again, I’ve only disdain for anything that requires faith.

    Reply
  134. dan -  November 25, 2011 - 7:38 pm

    “The Church doesn’t hold very many of these councils, after the Council of Trent, the next one was 400 years later when Pope Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (also called Vatican II) to discuss how the Catholic Church would face the modern world.”

    Vatican I intervened in 1869-1870.

    Reply
  135. Laura -  November 25, 2011 - 7:26 pm

    We were given some laminated pamphlets on the new way to say the Apostles Creed and a bunch of the sayings you say after the priest recites his; for instance, “and also with you” is no longer how we are supposed to say it. I don’t mind the change I guess, but it is rather difficult when you have been brought up in the church since you’ve been born, you went through your catechism studies, and now they all of a sudden decided to change the ways. They all mean the same pretty much. They just changed the words to translate to the more Latin meaning I suppose.

    Reply
  136. Catholic Questioner -  November 25, 2011 - 6:50 pm

    I have never understood the Catholic Church, even though I am Catholic. It has always seemed to me, as a religion of salespersons. The Church continually attempts to convert people. If you ever meet somebody Jewish or Hindi, they don’t try to convert you. The Catholic Church also crushes any opposition, or any other religion for that matter, whether that religion speaks out against them or not. This very often results in major crimes against humanity. These crimes include the Spanish Inquisition, led by Torquemada, pogroms throughout the world against Jews, and general hatred against everybody. Finally, the Catholic scriptures aren’t entirely true. Assuming Jesus, who by the way was Jewish, and preached Judaism was born in year 0, he would have died at around year 40. Christianity, a direct descendent of Judaism, was formulated in the year 300. Please remember that these are approximate dates, and we are using His birth as our reference point. The bible explicitly states that there was Christianity at the time of his existence, which in my opinion, is a downright lie, and anyone who states that Jesus lived for 300 years, is a total moron. I rest my case

    Reply
  137. nodders -  November 25, 2011 - 6:36 pm

    I love the Latin mass, I attend such a service every week if I can. And sometimes, if lucky, I might even catch the old pre-Vatican II service.

    Is it a coincidence that this year it is also the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible? That bastion of linguistic licence so dear to the (protestant) Anglican church?

    Reply
  138. steve -  November 25, 2011 - 6:28 pm

    The Catholic Church is not changing the mass at all. The mass is going to be the same mass as before. the only change is to the translation from a “loose” translation of the Latin rite to a more “literal” translation. This will bring English-speaking Catholics in a greater universal communion with those living in non-English speaking societies.

    Reply
  139. Shane -  November 25, 2011 - 6:16 pm

    WHO CARES!!!.. Catholicism is NOT True Christianity, it is nothing more than Christianity MASKED in Mysticism & FALSE Religion, They’ve turned the Biblical Prophets into a pantheon of false gods & the Virgin Mary into their Chief False Deity.

    As a True Christian myself, it makes me sad to know so many ppl actually adhere to this, the most DECEPTIVE of all Pagan Worship!!!

    Reply
  140. Truth -  November 25, 2011 - 6:02 pm

    Ah catholic religion.. everyone’s favorite delusion.

    Reply
  141. james -  November 25, 2011 - 5:48 pm

    That’s funny that you say this week, because this change happened months ago in Churches throughout at least Sydney, Australia.

    Reply
  142. Linda J. Fontaine -  November 25, 2011 - 5:45 pm

    Major error. There was a major church council between Trent and Vat. II. It was called The Vatican Council. We call it Vatican 1 now. That’s why we call the one called by Pope John XXIII Vatican II. Pope Paul VI closed the council when they had completed major reforms.

    Reply
  143. Kym -  November 25, 2011 - 5:30 pm

    Translating anything is painful. I know first hand. When I first “mastered” the English language, I decided to master other languages. But the difficulty of Japanese is that there are many words that either mean two things (wani can either mean alligator or crocodile, depending on the context) or there are similar sounding words (the words for owl and sack sound too close to be different.) And don’t get me started on languages used in Biblical texts. My father regularly studies these languages and I try to find suitable translations for certain words (i.e. the word that was replaced with “carpenter” in the Bible to describe Jesus’ job before he became known for his teaching as we know of him now was actually a word that meant “one who works with his hands”)

    Reply
  144. Jon -  November 25, 2011 - 5:24 pm

    This article is a bit misleading. The main elements of the Mass haven’t changed since the Last Supper. Minor changes (like the ones now being implemented) happen relatively frequently. Relatively major changes (like deciding it will be said in a different language) are rare. But this isn’t really “three times in 2000 years” kind of event. It’s more of a “first time since the 60s” kind of event.

    Reply
  145. Juna -  November 25, 2011 - 4:52 pm

    Victoria: The answer to your question about “the word” is found in John 1:14. “And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father.”

    Reply
  146. dan -  November 25, 2011 - 4:45 pm

    Latin is the original language of the Romans, whom without the Catholic faith might not even exist. Seeing how the Roman Empire had the greatest communication(roads, horses, word of war, etc.) and rule at the time, which helped the religion tremendously when it became that of the Roman people. So the Church being spoken in Armaic would make no bit of sense… and the newest language of the Church being mirrored after Latin is a good, it to was the “universal language” at one point.

    Reply
  147. PilgrimNProgress -  November 25, 2011 - 4:24 pm

    Dictionary.com, thank you for a very interesting article

    Reply
  148. George -  November 25, 2011 - 4:20 pm

    God has asked us to go and speak different languages, and why do we have to pray in Latin and Aramaic and/or Hebrew, if you speak the language of your choice quite welcome to pray in a language most understood to you. To pray few sentences in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic is a blessing, and up to twelve languages you walk one extra mile.

    Reply
  149. chris -  November 25, 2011 - 3:56 pm

    I believe Pope John XXIII convened Vatican II.

    Reply
  150. John -  November 25, 2011 - 3:45 pm

    I guess the Catholic Church found this was necessary, but as a Catholic, I really do not see how this change will positively affect the Church in any way, shape, or form. When I go to church, I hear other churchgoers say the prayers in their own language. Some people say Holy Ghost instead of Holy Spirit. Is one of those statements more pious than the other? I truly believe the Catholic Church should direct its energies elsewhere instead of focusing on language.

    Reply
  151. Mark Debur -  November 25, 2011 - 3:21 pm

    A very interesting article indeed, glad to see it posted here. Although, the author’s claim that the Catholic Church began only 1700 years ago at the Council of Nicaea is suspect at best. If I’m not mistaken, that hypothesis is widely abandoned now, given the strong evidence of the foundational beliefs of the Church established well before the council, as witnessed in earlier writings. Also, the author seems to think the next council after Trent was Vatican II. A rather embarrasing mistake, forgetting about Vatican I in 1870.

    That said, I still found it an intriguing article.

    Reply
  152. Tobias Mook -  November 25, 2011 - 2:30 pm

    Oh nonononono. Oh my, anyone want to count how many people are trying to convert us?

    Reply
  153. Kari -  November 25, 2011 - 2:30 pm

    Urgh I used to go to Catholic mass every week. They’ve made a few minor changes in wording before. Really all this is going to do is frustrate those who are used to the old way. I’ve never been to the Latin version yet I knew what was going on before the latest changes. I can think of so many more important things to focus on than wording most people already get the gist of.

    Reply
  154. Chris -  November 25, 2011 - 2:29 pm

    I’m wish the new text flowed a little more smoothly/poetically, but I appreciate the fact that the Church wants to stay faithful to the original translation – as much as it is possible, anyway! As for the cost… Think about how you spend your own money. Do you only buy something when you need it, i.e. food, gas, clothing, or do you ever buy material things like fabric-made flowers to decorate your entry hall? Or, if you were on the PTA council and your child’s school was determining which set of textbooks to buy, would you choose the cheap ones or the ones that you thought had the best content (because you want your child to understand the material at a level that goes above and beyond and not at a merely surface level)?

    Reply
  155. Charles F. -  November 25, 2011 - 2:22 pm

    The Catholic church did not start with the birth of Jesus. The commentaries about Jesus were written 40 – 100 years after Christ died. Then they were translated into Latin around 300′s and possibly changed in meaning based on some ideology of the day. The actual documents which are in the current New Testament were chosen (and some were left out) based on some ideology of the day, at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The Dead Sea Scrolls which many Biblical scholars attest to being the original text of the New Testament, has passages which were the left out parts of the Bible, which the Vatican refuses to admit as they would alter some of the Catholic belief system. BTW did you know that there is more than one “Pope”? The current Bishop of Rome is Pope Benedict 16th (Joseph Ratzinger). But there are also the Ecumenical Patriarch Bishop of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch Archbishop of Alexandria. There are 3 Popes. All three hold their noses at the mention of anything Protestant or Anglican or any understanding of Christianity that Catholics cannot control with threats of damnation, forever and ever, amen.

    Reply
  156. Cyberquill -  November 25, 2011 - 2:12 pm

    “Seen and unseen” and “visible and invisible” do NOT have the same meaning, as the former implies the presence of a seer while the latter does not. Something can be perfectly visible without ever having been seen because nobody ever went to the spot from where it could be seen.

    Reply
  157. Wash Phillips -  November 25, 2011 - 2:11 pm

    What, exactly, is Jean King smoking?

    Reply
  158. cat -  November 25, 2011 - 2:03 pm

    the catholic church is already deceiving plenty of people. And now they will be changing their language to a more deceiving language to those who don’t understand and speak Aramaic or Latin.Better to use English because that’s a universal language.

    Reply
  159. Lori -  November 25, 2011 - 1:48 pm

    Very interesting article. I’m not a Catholic but because of the way that church has shaped the world, I found this intriguing.

    Reply
  160. ed -  November 25, 2011 - 1:48 pm

    Good article. I think that the best statement in the article was in paragraph 2.

    However, the Catholic Church can’t say, “We don’t know.”

    I don’t know either (well I do but not for here) so: Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Merry Maybe Day, Great Nothing Day, and all the rest, too. Best to all of you.

    Reply
  161. Kris -  November 25, 2011 - 1:45 pm

    It’s a travesty that the Catholic Church has “tried” to translate mass into something that resembles the Latin vulgate rather than accept that the Word of God will translate not through the words but through the meaning of the words we repeat. Beside that, the article even stated that the bible was not originally written in Latin, so why try to convey the Latin translation, rather than the original Greek scripture? It’s understandable that the church translated the mass from Latin to English, but this new translation falls short to the true meaning! In fact it alienates current Catholics, myself included, and tells us that we have been praying and worshiping WRONG!

    Reply
  162. Mann -  November 25, 2011 - 1:33 pm

    I think I agree with Miyu…!!

    Was that really neded?

    Is that really productive??

    Reply
  163. Nancy Orlando -  November 25, 2011 - 1:18 pm

    I have had my homepage set to Dictionary.com for years, but no longer. The incredible ignorance and inaccuracy of your report on the Catholic Church shows strong bias, a lack of historical knowledge and inaccurate reporting. If this is an example of your other posts, I cannot trust anything that appears on your page. And I will not even bother to comment on the ignorance of the other bloggers since there are absolutely no words …
    The Catholic Church began when Jesus said to Peter, “You are Peter” (Kepha which means rock in Aramaic – the language Jesus spoke) and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” It was St. Ignatius (the Bishop of Antioch who was martyred in 108 AD.) who first used the word “Catholic Church” in writing. He used the word “Catholic” which means “universal” to refer to all Christians everywhere in the world. At that time, if you were a Christian, you followed the Bishops who were ordained by the Apostles who were ordained by Christ. If you did not, you were not in the Church that Christ founded and you were not Catholic.
    Everyone who in the Church which was founded by the Apostles was Catholic and they called themslves Catholic from at least 108 AD (but the word was probably used earlier since108 AD is simply the 1st known written use of the word.)
    At Nicea, the Catholic Church simply put down in formal writing what the Catholic Church had always taught from the beginning. It had not been formally documented previously because the Church was under such great persecution for the first 300 years, that Catholics were being slaughtered by the thousands – every Catholic Pope (but one) from St. Peter until the Edict of Milan (which made Christianity legal in 313 AD) was martyred by the Emperors. The Emperors certainly knew that the Catholic Church existed and they also knew where to find its leader, the Pope.
    I could go on, but why should I have to. you are the ones who call yourselves “Dictionary. com” so get your facts straight and stop your Catholic bashing!

    Reply
  164. Nshera -  November 25, 2011 - 12:56 pm

    This is a very invigorating article! I would like to learn more! (.V.) is :-)!!!!!!! I am \%%%/ of words!

    Reply
  165. Vanessa -  November 25, 2011 - 12:55 pm

    @Kevin: Where does it say that…?
    I don’t see any question of that sort. This seems to me to be an entirely objective look at what the Church has done and is doing in regards to the language of the Mass.

    @Katy: Very good point. Not exactly the same meaning.

    @Tammy: Agreed. Maybe it’s just that Aramaic is such an unknown language…?

    Interesting article, thanks.

    Reply
  166. James -  November 25, 2011 - 12:54 pm

    Have been using the new translation at our Church for the past eight weeks and agree totally with C Shaw’s comments. Glory be to God.

    Reply
  167. Omoyeni stephen -  November 25, 2011 - 12:45 pm

    Well,whatever the language,the WORD of GOD stands forever sure. It is same yesterday,today and forever.

    Reply
  168. C Shaw -  November 25, 2011 - 12:36 pm

    Everything old is new again. The “new” language is closer to what was used back in the 1960s. Overall, in my opinion, the return to a more formal diction restores a sense of reverence and mystery.

    Reply
  169. Victoria -  November 25, 2011 - 12:25 pm

    Thanks for that intriguing comment Kevin.
    Got me thinking, and I will side with Dictionary.com, to feature this Change because, for me, a Catholic, words have a profound impact on how reality is shaped, this goes to mention that this article created awareness on how my faith will be shaped by this Change.

    And if I may add this, as this line has always left me wondering:
    “In the beginning was the Word… “

    Reply
  170. Jason -  November 25, 2011 - 12:03 pm

    @Kevin: did you even read the article? Your comment is laughable.

    The title (nor the subject matter) of the article is not “Should..” and the content does not present a debate on whether changing the mass is a good or a bad thing (nor does it attempt to sway readers one way or the other). Rather, the article accomplishes at least the following three things: 1) an albeit brief but interesting account of the linguistic history of the Mass 2) an explanation as to why changes might be warranted (by those whose very business it is to make the changes) 3) a fascinating indication that changing the Mass – obviously something quite serious and precious to Catholics – has resulted in sometimes subtle and sometimes significant changes in MEANING.

    No offense, but this is VERY much the business of dictionary.com (and anyone else who might be interested in language).

    And no, I don’t work for the site.

    Reply
  171. WJ -  November 25, 2011 - 12:03 pm

    The Church is about 2011 years old. THAT’s the big deal!

    Reply
  172. Katy -  November 25, 2011 - 11:51 am

    “The old text reads: “of all that is seen and unseen.” The new text reads: “of all things visible and invisible.” They have the same meaning, but the Church says the new one is closer to the original Latin.”

    Sorry, but “seen” and “visible”/”unseen” and “invisible” are hardly equivalents. Many things might be “unseen” yet are not “invisible.” Many things might be “visible,” but not “seen.” How silly is this?

    Reply
  173. Jean King -  November 25, 2011 - 11:49 am

    I would like to know if anyone is interested in solving the mystery written from the very beginning?
    The answer is written and soon there will be so many changes that the words that were used in that time will take away from the fact that God is God and the son of God is not Jesus.
    Jesus was the first man slain from the very beginning for the word of God and that is just what Cain did to Abel.
    Why is it that everyone prayers to their heavenly father and that would be Adam and name is Him. For Adam the male is the father to everyone except the Adam named He.
    The Adam named He was bone of Adam named Him
    Flesh of Adam named Him.
    and what ever the rest Adam named Him says.
    However when God put Adam named He to sleep, removed a bone and sewn the flesh back.
    In today’s world that would have been a sex change. When God completed the surgery. God had created He Him, male and female them and their name was Adam.They were blessed and their off spring were referred to as the daughters of men. and they were named on the day they were created.
    The real son of God was sent to earth when God blew into the nostrils of the man formed from the dust making Him an individual soul.
    God made Him a help-meet for Adam named Him.
    God create performed a sex change again and that man was called woman.

    Reply
  174. Mary -  November 25, 2011 - 11:48 am

    Interesting. Now it sounds more like the mass in Spanish. Interesting indeed.

    Reply
  175. Miyu -  November 25, 2011 - 11:45 am

    It’s probaly because they put news, too!!!

    …..

    Reply
  176. fran -  November 25, 2011 - 11:43 am

    I have never known the Catholic church to do anything right, but always to do things for profit. There is a bottom line to this. Wait for it.

    Reply
  177. Darryl -  November 25, 2011 - 11:42 am

    I wonder how much money this cost, that could have gone to good works instead?

    Reply
  178. Tammy -  November 25, 2011 - 11:41 am

    If Jesus’ original language was probably Aramaic, and if the church is concerned about keeping the translation accurate, shouldn’t they “re translate” the Mass into (or according to) Aramaic rather than Latin? Just seems they are defeating the purpose.

    Reply
  179. Charlie -  November 25, 2011 - 11:33 am

    Good article only Vatican II was called by Pope John XXIII in October of 1962, not by Pope Paul VI.

    Reply
  180. Kevin -  November 25, 2011 - 11:24 am

    “Should the Catholic Church re-translate the Mass?”

    No offense, but this is not the business of dictionary.com.

    Reply
  181. Angelika -  November 25, 2011 - 10:59 am

    I had many times pondered about how translations changed the words we use in religions and how these changes might have implied in many misinterpretations and misguided prejudice of all kinds, but I had never looked for any timeline of such officials changes. It is a very interesting post, kept my attention and made me more curious about this subject. I’m an “English-language-enthusiast” so I loved all remarks about the languages and the translations done. Thanks a lot!!!!

    Reply
  182. Nicholas -  November 25, 2011 - 10:58 am

    Nice, thank you for this article.

    As a translator and a Catholic, I think it’s good that they work to make the translation more faithful to the original. And it’s important that it be right, as the phrase goes: Lex orandi, lex credendi, that is, we pray what we believe.

    If our prayers are not true to their original meaning, our beliefs will likewise be affected negatively.

    Reply
  183. Dale -  November 25, 2011 - 10:18 am

    Thanks for the interesting article. :)

    Reply

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (required):

Related articles

Back to Top