They did it in response to the backlash against the sexual assaults. They doubled down on their importance by making it seem like they were relevant and more pious to deflect attention away from them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still hate how we used to say, “and also with you.” And now have to say, “and with your spirit.”

We should have been saying “and with your spirit” all along. That’s what “Et cum spiritu tuo” means.

Adding: and how it was translated in the initial (transitional) English language Missal.

I bet they changed it because people are more "spiritual" these days and Catholics are trying to keep everyone they can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still hate how we used to say, “and also with you.” And now have to say, “and with your spirit.”

We should have been saying “and with your spirit” all along. That’s what “Et cum spiritu tuo” means.

Adding: and how it was translated in the initial (transitional) English language Missal.

Anonymous wrote:I still hate how we used to say, “and also with you.” And now have to say, “and with your spirit.”

We should have been saying “and with your spirit” all along. That’s what “Et cum spiritu tuo” means.

I still hate how we used to say, “and also with you.” And now have to say, “and with your spirit.”

Anonymous wrote:10 years and you haven't adjusted yet? And nothing about it was "sudden" (by your definition of a few weeks) either after VII or for the new translation.

Change is jolting when you're used to doing things a certain way.

10 years and you haven't adjusted yet? And nothing about it was "sudden" (by your definition of a few weeks) either after VII or for the new translation.

There are different schools of thought on liturgical and scriptural translations. One side favors the most literal reading possible. The other puts more emphasis on poetic flow and the like.

The Vatican has gone back and forth between these poles in the years since the Second Vatican Council. The more recent revision to the Roman Missal adopted a more literal approach. The difference between the opposing schools goes beyond just linguistics; “lex orendi, lex credendi” (as we pray, we believe).

Some of the language changed in the revised Missal was quite beautiful and inspiring. The Preface of Martyrs, for example, used to read “His/her death reveals your power shining through our human weakness. You choose the weak and make them strong in bearing witness to you.” That language is gone and the preface is kind of bland now.

That said, many of the changes restored long-standard English translations of things that the prior “Sacramentary” obviously mistranslated.

Examples are “Et cum spiritu tuo” never meant “and also with you.” It always meant “and with your spirit,” and Latin/English Missals before the Council all translated it that way.

Similarly “dignum et iustum est” never meant “it is right to give him thanks and praise.” It always meant “it is right and just,” and was translated that way before the Council.

No idea, op. I’m sure I’m exposing myself as Catholic Lite at Easter and Christmas by saying it the old way, but you can teach this old dog new tricks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know what you are talking about, but I can't say I understand the reason. We've gone from "Holy Ghost" to "Holy Spirit". They've rewritten the Apostles Creed - "consubstantial" with the Father. When I was a kid, we never said "consubstantial".

I think I used to say "of one with the father". Does that sound familiar?

"one in being with the Father, through him all things were made" as I recall

Anonymous wrote:The pope said it was a better more literal translation

Maybe it is -- I'm certainly no language expert -- but why did they wait decades to update the translation? If they knew it was wrong way back when, why not fix it then?

Anonymous wrote:I know what you are talking about, but I can't say I understand the reason. We've gone from "Holy Ghost" to "Holy Spirit". They've rewritten the Apostles Creed - "consubstantial" with the Father. When I was a kid, we never said "consubstantial".

I think I used to say "of one with the father". Does that sound familiar?

The pope said it was a better more literal translation

I know what you are talking about, but I can't say I understand the reason. We've gone from "Holy Ghost" to "Holy Spirit". They've rewritten the Apostles Creed - "consubstantial" with the Father. When I was a kid, we never said "consubstantial".

Ok I know this was 10 years ago, but I still find myself saying it the "old way" since many years of going to mass and it's a habit.

https://www.npr.org/2008/08/11/93419478/catholics-will-no-longer-recite-and-also-with-you

The claim is that the original translation to English was not ideal. This was done around Vatican II, when they decided it was OK to say the mass in the local language instead of Latin.

My question is -- Vatican II was years and years ago. Why did they feel a change was suddenly needed? If the original translation was bad (because they were in a hurry to do it after Vatican II), why not fix it a few weeks latre. It's not like there's a lack of resources to translate a few prayers into English.