November 3rd, 2010
11:38 AM ET

Catholics to learn new wording for Mass

Roman Catholics are being taught new wording for many familiar prayers.

Roman Catholics will have to learn new wording for some of their most familiar prayers.

The Vatican is rolling out a new translation of the Roman Missal, the text around which the Mass and its prayers are built.

It's the first major revision since Pope Paul VI issued the original Missale Romanum in Latin in 1970.

The English translation was released in 1973 and revised two years later. Those translations were prompted by the Second Vatican Council of 1962, which did away with the Latin Mass and decreed that Masses should be celebrated in each parish's local language.

Pope John Paul II ordered the latest translation in 2000. The first use of the new text will happen about a year from now, on November 27, 2011, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The bishops' conference has been conducting workshops all year to help local clergy and lay ministers prepare for the changes.

Here's a sampling of the wording changes, some of which are throwbacks to phrasing from the late 1960s and early '70s:

Greeting and other dialogues

Old: (Priest) The Lord be with you. (People) And also with you.

New: (Priest) The Lord be with you. (People) And with your spirit.

Ecce Agnus Dei (This is the Lamb of God)

Old: (Priest) This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper. (People) Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.

New: (Priest) Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb. (People) Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

There are also significant changes to the Penitential Act (“I confess to Almighty God …”), the Gloria (“Glory to God in the highest …”), the Nicene Creed (“We believe in one God …”), the Sanctus (“Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might …”), and other parts of the Mass.

To see all the changes and a revised order of Mass, go to the bishops' website.

"The long-term goal of the new translation is to foster a deeper awareness and appreciation of the mysteries being celebrated in the Liturgy," the bishops write on their website.

"The axiom 'Lex orandi, lex credendi' - ‘What we pray is what we believe’ - suggests that there is a direct relationship between the content of our prayers and the substance of our faith."

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Catholic Church • Mass

soundoff (199 Responses)
  1. Les

    They can re-write all they want (and some of it now makes no sense, like the Ecce Agnus Dei response) but it doesn’t make any of it any more true than it was before the changes, which is not true at all. It is a nice way to organize like minded people and give them something greater than themselves to look to when life isn’t easy, but the truth is there is no son-of-god Jesus, no god, no life after death. I am a believer in reality, and the goodness of human beings, and the idea that life is a short-term existance in which we should all be trying to do good for the world and be as happy as we decide we want to be.

    November 4, 2010 at 12:55 am |
    • Sum Dude


      This may sound strange, as I am an agnostic, but you make assertions without proof and somehow believe that happiness is a "choice" that people aren't making often enough.

      And life doesn't have to be a "short-term existence", either. You state things as if you know them to be true like many religious folk, but you cannot prove them, also like religious folk.

      Human existence has uncertainty, discontent, and physical needs...our human bodies are erratic, unreliable, uncontrollable, very vulnerable to just about everything, and haphazardly evolved....and our brains are commensurately badly evolved as well.

      Which might explain your post. lol (just had to put that in, sorry.)

      People with clinical depression cannot "choose" to be happy. They did not make a "choice" to suffer depression.
      The number of people who believe that happiness is just a "choice" one has to "make firmly" or something, is enormous.
      You might be right about there being no gods around, but you couldn't possibly know for sure, as you cannot prove it...can you....
      Just arguin'

      November 4, 2010 at 4:01 am |
  2. jjs

    This disappoints me as a Catholic because it ruins the joke my friend and I have when we quote Star Wars. One of us says, "May the Force be with you." To which the response is, "And also with you."

    November 3, 2010 at 11:58 pm |
    • Zardoze

      that's from a French & Saunders skit

      November 4, 2010 at 11:29 am |
    • jjs

      Darn! I wonder how many funny things I've thought of have been done. I've not heard of or seen the skit. Does that still make me unoriginal? Oh well. I'll have to do a litttle search for the skit. I guess I won't stake claim to making that up.

      November 5, 2010 at 10:13 am |
  3. anotherview

    In the end, we all meet our Maker!!!

    November 3, 2010 at 11:53 pm |
    • Nunyer Beezwax

      Our parents?

      November 4, 2010 at 7:11 am |
  4. streetcar01

    This is earth shattering.

    November 3, 2010 at 10:46 pm |
    • Den

      if only it were.

      November 5, 2010 at 10:49 am |
  5. billp

    "It is necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." – Pope Boniface VII

    Those words say everything you need to know about the Catholic Church and its goals.

    November 3, 2010 at 10:40 pm |
  6. Reality

    Amazing facts about the koran:

    "Islam’s Koran and Wa-r Ve-rses

    Readers will have heard apo-logists for the Koran acknowledge that, yes, there are w-ar ve-rses in the Koran, but only a few. Every Muslim ap-ologist hastens to add that the Koran’s sp-ar-se number of war ve-rses relate to just a few unavoidable military crises in Islam’s early history. They as-sure us that no war ve-rse was ever intended to serve as a model inc-iting Muslims in general to hostil-ity against res-istant non-Muslims in all ages.

    What is the truth of the matter?

    In fact, there are at least 109 ident-ifiable war verses in the Koran. One out of every 55 verses in the Koran is a war verse. War ve-rses are scattered throughout Mohammed’s chapters like bl-ood sp-latter at a crime scene. I will demo-nstrate from Mohammed’s own words that he leaves readers in no doubt—he obviously intended his war verses to aro-use Muslims to compel the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, even by violence if necessary. Failing their con-version, Mohammed ordained that non-Muslims be killed, enslaved or—provided Islam is in full political control—heavily taxed for the adva-ncement of Islam in per-pe-tu-ity!

    And yet I hes-itate. Why? If I simply cite war verse after war verse after war verse from among 109 samples, many readers, seeing just the words on paper, may think it was just that—ven-geful-sounding words that got written on paper but remain inn-ocent because they did not lead to actual deeds of vio-lence. Even Hitler’s Mein Kampf—minus World War II—could be just-ified by some as Ad-olph’s way of venting fru-stration. Thus I am obl-igated to quote Mohammed’s war verses in the con-text of the actual vio-lence they either described or inspired. Violent words that trigger vio-lent deeds cannot be dis-missed as inn-ocent ra-mblings.

    The tragic events I describe in the next few pages are all confirmed from Muslim sources. Readers may find it odd that per-pe-trators of such lo-athsome crimes would confess them so aud-aciously. In fact, the vio-lence that Mohammed inspired in his followers was so per-va-sive that both he and they seem to have lost all sense of how vil-lainous the recounting of their deeds would appear to non-Muslim readers in ages to come. As the following chapter shows, they virt-ually brag about mur-dering inn-ocents."

    November 3, 2010 at 10:36 pm |
  7. Iqbal khan

    Check what this professor is saying


    November 3, 2010 at 10:21 pm |
  8. Iqbal khan


    November 3, 2010 at 10:06 pm |
    • Reality

      From Sir Salman Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses", p. 376, paperback issue – for those 1.5 billion Muslims to read as they are forbidden to purchase or read said book:

      One of the passages that prompted the crazy Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa against Sir Rushdie:

      "The faithful lived by lawlessness, but in those years Mahound – or should one say the Archangel Gibreel? – should one say Al-Lah? – became obsessed by law.

      Amid the palm-trees of the oasis Gibreel appeared to the Prophet and found himself spouting rules, rules, rules, until the faithful could scarcely bear the prospect of any more revelation, Salman said, rules about every damn thing, if a man farts let him turn his face to the wind, a rule
      about which hand to use for the purpose of cleaning one's behind.

      It was as if no aspect of human existence was to be left unregulated, free. The revelation – the recitation- told the faithful how much to eat, how deeply they should sleep, and which se-xual
      positions had received divine sanction, so that they leamed that so-domy and the missionary position were approved of by the archangel, whereas the forbidden postures included all those in which the female was on top.

      Gibreel further listed the permitted and forbidden subjects of conversation, and earmarked the parts of the body which could not be scratched no matter how unbearably they might itch.

      He vetoed the con-sumption of prawns, those bizarre other-worldly creatures which no member of the faithful had ever seen, and required animals to be killed slowly, by bleeding, so that by experiencing their deaths to the full they might arrive at an understanding of the meaning of their lives, for it is only at the moment of death that living creatures understand that life has been real, and not a sort of dream.-

      And Gibreel the archangel specified the manner in which a man should be buried, and how his property should be divided, so that Salman the Persian got to wondering what manner of God this was that sounded so much like a businessman.

      This was when he had the idea that destroyed his faith, because he recalled that of course Mahound himself had been a businessman, and a damned successful one at that, a person to whom organization and rules came naturally, so
      how excessively convenient it was that he should have come up with such a very businesslike archangel, who handed down the management decisions of this highly corporate, if noncorporeal, God."

      November 3, 2010 at 10:23 pm |
  9. capnjammer

    @Brad: of eve-ryth-ing I said, your only arg-ument is that what I said is true, it just hap-pened a little later? I still as-sert that the vi-li-fi-ca-tion and murder of certain "Chris-tians" was part of a Roman scheme to cod-ify their beliefs into the new state religion and do away with the nay-sayers, and again stress that beli-eving something so firmly that you are willing to die for those beliefs does not, in fact, lend any cre-dence to those beliefs. Ja-pan-ese ka-mik-aze pi-lots crashed their planes into enemy shi-ps because they believed Hi-ro-hi-to was God.

    Sorry about all the dashes but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what was causing my problem.

    November 3, 2010 at 9:45 pm |
    • Sum Dude


      November 4, 2010 at 2:16 am |
    • Sum Dude

      (newest addition = j-ap-- thx capnjammer!)

      bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to post that wonderful argument:
      Many, if not most are buried within other words, but I am not shooting for the perfect list, so use your imagination.
      You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
      s-ex....Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
      c-um.........as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, etc.
      sp-ic........as in disp-icable (look out Sylvester the cat!)
      ho-mo...whether ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, etc.
      t-it.........const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, etc.
      fu-ck...isn't this a great word? yet they filter it. 🙁
      tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, (an unexpected one)
      pr-ick....perhaps cupr-ic would also fall under the ban.
      va-g....as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
      ar-se....yet "ass" is not filtered!
      nip-ple...those baby bottles are obscene aren't they?
      cu-nt...as in Scu-ntthorpe, a city in the UK, famous for having problems with filters...!
      co-on...as in rac-oon, coc-oon
      ra-pe...as in gr-ape, etc.
      jacka-ss...but ass is fine lol
      p-is.....as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, etc.

      ft-w....as in soft-ware...!!!!!omg!
      j-ap...as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc...this is one I had forgotten,as I only encountered it elsewhere...

      There are more, some of them considered "racist", so do not assume that this is complete.
      okay words that you might have thought were bad...lol
      I have found the best way to re-submit is to hit the back button, delete the cookies, look for and fix the problem and then hit "post". There are also "technical" ways past the filter, like "html ent-ities" (google it without the dash), but the filter is the problem, not a solution. Filters should not be needed in a free opinion blog.

      November 4, 2010 at 2:17 am |
  10. truehuman

    Our father who art in heaven
    hallowed be thy name
    thy kingdom come
    thy will be done
    on earth as it is in heaven
    give us this day our daily bread
    and forgive us our trespasses
    as we forgive those that trespass against us
    and lead us not into temptation
    but deliver us from evil

    November 3, 2010 at 9:19 pm |
    • Nunyer Beezwax

      Yawn. Just proving what a robotic church chump you are.

      November 4, 2010 at 7:13 am |
  11. Liz

    I just went to the Bisthops' website. There is nothing new about this 'new' language. This is the language of the missal from the middle 1960's. I remember saying these prayers as a kid; they're a direct translation from the Latin! Sounds like the Pope is moving things backward some more....

    November 3, 2010 at 8:22 pm |
    • dalis

      These changes bring the Roman Rite closer to the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Use of High Anglican and Anglo-Catholic Churches. My hunch is that they're not just trying to get the mass closer to a direct translation of the Latin (Tridentine) mass, but they're also preparing for the eventual reconciliation of the East-West Schism.

      November 4, 2010 at 4:02 am |
  12. Daithi mac curtáin

    The changes seem strange lord Im not worthy to receive you under my roof ? I always thought to receive you was to receive you in the mouth as in the blessed host , I think this is really tinkering with something just for the sake of it or it does not translate well from italian to english . But if the holy father and the bishops feel this is for the better then so be it and God bless my beloved church .

    November 3, 2010 at 8:04 pm |
  13. Cecil Nixxon

    True, Deacons can celebrate the Eucharist and preside over some aspects of mass.

    But remember: The Clergy does more than Lay People!

    November 3, 2010 at 6:04 pm |
  14. Amanda

    Yeah, you need a thick skin when it comes to religion, politics, sports, and Siberia.

    November 3, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
  15. Believer

    to capnjammer-
    I will be praying for you specifically that you will turn back to Jesus Christ! The enemy(the devil) wants to do nothing but steal, kill and destroy...he knows his time is short....and he is going to try and take any soul that he can with him...but what is so awesome is that Jesus is Lord and He is coming soon and everything crazy that is going on in the world today is spoken of in the Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are in my prayers and everyone on here!! I pray that you will turn back to Jesus...He is the ONLY way! God bless YOU all !

    November 3, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
    • capnjammer

      I'm sorry, believer... well, I'm not really sorry in general, I just don't want to seem ungrateful for your time and effort. But I know for one hundred percent absolute fact that there is no such Jesus. It simply is not possible. I did not choose to leave Christianity based on emotion or anger or being dissuaded from my particular denomination. I simply can not believe something that I know beyond the shadow of a doubt to be absolutely false. I cannot argue that there is no God (only that there is no valid proof of the existence of any God), but Jesus is a different story. If Jesus ever really did exist, which I doubt, he was not the Messiah, and he especially was not the son of God.

      I could just as easily say that I'll be praying for you that you forsake the plagiarized religion of Christianity and follow the true religion it was based on, Zoroastrianism, and that you accept the original Jesus, Mithras, son of the god Mithra, and stop following the false god Jesus who is just a supplanter and usurper.

      November 3, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
    • Muneef

      Well for us as Muslims Jesus the Messiah did exist but was not sacrificed as told and died latter to be rised to heavens and come down again on time known to God. We know God exist from seeing the creation and that there is reason for every creature and creation and nothing came or created for nothing? We knew that God was not an idol from messengers of God who came one after another to warn and guide us to the truth.
      The only thing I agree with you that yes Jesus was a creation of God and his creation was as miracles as Adam but not as a Son of God or to be worshiped rather than God the creator ?
      We were told that there were Christion branch that did not consider Jesus as a son of God but heard they were exter,minated long ago and just wonder if any left existing..?

      November 3, 2010 at 8:40 pm |
    • capnjammer

      I think you mean the Gnostics, and yes, my best friend is a Gnostic. Everything else, well, I'm sorry (again, I keep saying this but I'm not really) but seeing the world around you isn't valid evidence of God. That's like saying finding a poo in the forest validates the idea that it was pooed by a leprechaun. The universe began to exist, yes, but just because it did in no way infers that a God did it. In fact, the God hypothesis adds nothing to the search for the truth of our origins. God is not necessary for the universe to make sense, and really only makes it that much more confused. When the first man with a brain big enough to do so stepped out of his hut and said "I don't understand how the world started, but I made that hut, so the world must have been made by someone like me, only bigger," you had the start of theology. Then, when he told someone "I just figured out that God created the world, and he wants you to give me that pretty rock or he'll allow me to kill you" the first religion was formed. All religions after that are just copies of that first man's ignorance and greed.

      November 3, 2010 at 9:10 pm |
    • Muneef

      Guess if that what you are convinced with then let it be because I am not here to convince you but marking our teachings although we all have minds and hearts that tells us the truth of things. As suppose I tell you a lie you will find your self unconvinced because you felt some thing telling you otherwise and that's how we can tell truth from lies..
      God in the Quran told us that our minds and hearts are responsible of differentiating between the truth and the false but told us as well that some people have locks on their hearts or blinded hearts and couldn't tell the difference because their faith in God was weak or are more in to clone or traditions that they do not want to give up..

      November 3, 2010 at 10:06 pm |
  16. Sum Dude

    Yet this freedom of speech thing is okay....as long as no one "reports abuse" for no good reason...!
    Then the thread goes "spang". *sigh*

    November 3, 2010 at 5:47 pm |
    • Sum Dude

      twa is on the list?

      November 3, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
    • Donnewald

      Being a Catholic, I find the butchery to The Apostles Creed offensive. But I won't report it as such because all interacting on this thread need to see it and make their own decision.

      November 3, 2010 at 11:26 pm |
    • Sum Dude


      As this is the first time I have seen this statement (under Reality's label or anywhere for that matter), the first thing that popped into my head after reading your posted response was-an impression that you are having some kind of hang-up over the name "The Apostles Creed."

      I say this because I can't remember if I've ever read that Catholic(I'm assuming) statement.
      I am not going to look it up until I am done posting this.
      This is just my first impression of why people hit the button on this...when I have seen (and written some of it myself) much "worse" in this blog.
      The only difference between this post of "Reality's" and so many others is that here seems to be that someone hit the button enough times – not hard to do for one person with a little imagination (an obvious drawback to having a button like that)...so then the next clue would be that of the tltle to which you refer.

      Consider if these words had not been given that particular tltle...would you have been as upset?
      Is it because you are not used to seeing such things spelled out in a blog or something?

      Your Catholic Church is guilty of some of the most heinous crimes against humanity done over 2000 years.
      You know your Church's history, right?

      So why would any Catholic feel justified in pushing that button for that purpose?
      Pettiness mixed with revulsion of a religious nature? Shock? Outrage? Being monstrously offended?

      You know that's how -I-, an agnostic tend to look at the Catholic Church, right?
      For all the crimes that have been done, ARE STILL BEING DONE, and are very likely to continue to be done, the Catholic Church has very little cause to protest anything like a call for justice or a denouncing of the other policies and crimes of the CC. I'm not stopping you from being offended, am I? Oh, well. I thought it might be worth a try.
      Thanks for supporting everyone's right to hit the post button, at least. If people can't express anything better than hitting a button, then perhaps they should play some videogames instead.
      They can be rad fun, man. Consider the soft-ware market (the letters ft-w get "moderated", sorry)....is there some sort of Catholic videogame you could play or suggest to the right videogame developers?
      Then you could be have some truly blessed fun instead of seeing our "offensive" posts....??

      November 4, 2010 at 1:25 am |
    • Sum Dude


      Having looked up "The Apostles Creed" and looked at the different "types" I find that I have heard this somewhere before.
      I used to drink that gra-pe juice, yeah. I remember hearing that at least once now.

      Now I came back to compare the two "versions" and discover something amazingly obvious – what "Reality" posted is just a sort of statement of how Christianity is seen by some other people or maybe a statement of "belief" that views many of the usual tenets of Christian belief in a different light.

      Some Jews, Muslims, (and probably others) would probably have this opinion of what is contained in the "official" creed statements.
      Is this a bad thing?
      Can it be refuted using good evidence beyond second and third-hand accounts?
      If not, then maybe you don't really have good cause to be offended.

      November 4, 2010 at 1:56 am |
  17. Sum Dude

    Did "Reality" post something at the top and everyone hit the "report abuse" button to make it go away and glitch up this thread??

    November 3, 2010 at 5:44 pm |
  18. Amanda

    God and the Devil were walking along a road one day and saw something shiny off to the side. God picked up the shiny object and said, "Oh look, it's Truth." The Devil said, "Give that to me. I'll organize it." And so, Truth became Religion.

    November 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
  19. treejammer

    As for me and my house, we welcome. the new translation.

    November 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm |
  20. brad

    Gosh. No wonder atheists are so angry. They're exhausted from trying to crowd the infinite through their brains. As Evelyn Underhill observed, "Absolutes are known only to absolute mind; our measurements, however careful and intricate, can never tally with the measurements of God."

    November 3, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
    • capnjammer

      @Brad: I beg to differ. Have you ever contemplated the universe? It is so much more than you can imagine, on both ends of the spectrum (microcosmic and macrocosmic). God was simply an excuse, a fill-in when we could not begin to understand. We are only just now stepping out into the shores of the vast ocean of discovery, and we no longer need the excuse "God did it." We want to find out what really did it, and we can no longer afford to let God get in the way of that. If the person who discovered penicillin had looked into his test tube one day and declared "It's a miracle!" instead of searching for the truth, millions would be dead right now. We must forsake God and doctrine. The world is not so black-and-white as it once was thought to be. We must investigate the grey areas, or we will die out as a species. The segregation, bigotry, hatred, division, and the stymieing of scientific, technological, medicinal, and societal advancement due to religion must be stopped.

      November 3, 2010 at 5:12 pm |
    • brad

      Evelyn Underhill was explaining what we face when dealing with the absolute. The approach you offer is limited to the temperal, finite, and what we can detect and process with our mere five senses. I agree with what you say as far as it goes.

      November 3, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
    • capnjammer

      Then would you please explain, if all of this is really so beyond our five senses and ability to process, the organizations that claim to be the mouthpieces of God. I appreciate your own personal belief and respect your right to it. I find my "spirituality" in my contemplation on the vast amazingness of the universe. My Scripture is the beautifully lyrical way that Carl Sagan explains it, for example:

      "The Cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths
      Of exquisite interrelationships
      Of the awesome machinery of nature

      I believe our future depends powerfully
      On how well we understand this cosmos
      In which we float like a mote of dust
      In the morning sky."

      I also, whereas I once used to weep whenever I heard the old hymn "It Is Well With My Soul" now weep as I hear John Lennon envision a world where everyone is brother and sister and the last walls of government, religion, and greed have been brought down from between us.

      But why is my accepted method of spirituality not good enough? Why should anyone claim to know the mind of God any more than me? Why is my "religion," which is peace and harmony for all people, not good enough for those who claim to speak for God, who claim my beliefs are only lies told to distract from the truth of their God, who divide the world through the theology of creed, who cannot prove themselves to be any more worthy, if at all worthy, of the revelation of God's mind than I? And why should I not fight against that which is clearly evil, clearly divisive, clearly harmful, not only to myself and my rights and beliefs but to the rights and beliefs of all of humanity? Why should I sit by and watch as children are sequestered away, never given the right to make a choice or learn of those things which I find so incomparably amazing? Why should I stand down and watch while those who mean to a-ssimilate my "faith" are not asked to do the same?

      November 3, 2010 at 5:57 pm |
1 2 3 4
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.