Heh. I have at least 75 prayer books/service books/liturgical books/hymnals of many stripes -- Presbyterian, Reformed, Episcopal/Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, Baptist, Moravian, even Mormon. Bought another (Lutheran) today at a used bookstore. It is an addiction.

As for the new translation of the Mass, it is (apparently, and for the most part) closer to the Latin, but it is very clumsy English at times. And there has been quite a discussion going on over at Ship of Fools over whether "who for us men and our salvation" is the best English translation of "qui propter nos homines et nostram salutem."

Glad I'm not the only one. I plan on buying a ELW when I get a chance, and expand from my mostly Anglican collection. I might buy a copy of the Roman Missal, though not sure which. I'm trying to get a hold of the Book of Divine Worship but not sure where to go for that.

I'll check tomorrow - but I'm pretty sure OLOW has them for $15. I'll let you know.

Oooh, Drole thanks for posting the NWI article. I knew about the change, but I hadn't seen any of the comparisons of old and new text. If you've been to a Latin Mass and understand Latin (admittedly my Latin is very very remedial) you can see how much of it is closer to the Latin text. Most noticable, I think, is the change of "And also with you" to "And with your spirit" - that was a pretty obvious departure from the Latin text.

You know, it will be a little annoying at first, but I can definitely agree that it will renew my participation at Mass. A lot of times I feel like I'm just going through the motions, so hopefully this challenges me to become a more active participant. I can tell already that the Nicene Creed is going to throw me for a loop though!

^^ yw
It's interesting how the two of us have different perspectives on it. For me it's a good thing that it provides some distance. If Mass doesn't hold that nostalgia for me anymore, then I won't feel a pull to return just out of habit. It's interesting, since I don't know the Latin at all, how it changes your perspective on it.

I read the new proper of the mass and I did not like it at all. For one thing it piles on even more guilt onto the people. And thanks SWTX!

Ha! My column last week was on guilt - I'm for it! As I look around the world today, it seems to me that there are plenty of people for whom the concept of guilt is entirely foreign. I'll spare y'all the whole column - but I think guilt can be a very good thing.

I think it's two things - first, I identify more with structure and ritual than words, I'm a hands on learner so I think the movement is more resonant with me. I'll wait until it changes to give you the final verdict though. Second, I'm at a place where I'm trying to renew my faith life, so a change when I'm changing just seems to fit.

Re: Guilt
I tend to agree with SWTXBelle, as I don't necessarily see guilt as a bad thing. It is definitely missing from certain aspects of our society. I think Catholicism has become somewhat of a counterculture, so I can appreciate its emphasis on guilt.

Vito, do you have a link to where you read the full text?

Order of the Mass.

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/order-of-mass.pdf

Oramus.

I think the Catholic Church misplaces guilt by making a sin of things that I don't believe to be sinful. I still see its lingering effects on my own attitudes. It's a bit like having to shake off an ever present fog. It clears but sometimes it returns out of no where. (And I think it returns from habit, not because it's correct.)

I don't think guilt or shame are positive emotions, even if they do have their places alongside anger and grief.

While I do think guilt has it's uses, I don't think it should be the focus of the Eucharist. That being said, I don't mind having special forms for potential times that have a more solemn and less joyous theme, like how we use the Great Litany in my church for Lent, I just don't see it being good to dwell on. Instead we should dwell on the gift of undeserved grace given to us.

It can be, or it can be debilitating, depending on how it is "used." Guilt as a self-awareness -- good. Guilt as a cudgel -- not so good. And being the Protestant that I am, guilt that's not coupled with grace -- so not good.

Meanwhile, as a Presbyterian, I have to note one place where the translators clearly didn't worry about a closer translation from the Latin: The Our Father. They kept the traditional (and archaic) form of the English, including "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. The Latin is: et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimìttimus debitòribus nostris. Clearly, the closer translation is "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." :D

^^ MC, does debts in that sense mean those beyond the financial? I've always wondered if the translation doesn't change because of the connotation of the english word 'debt' and particularly 'debtor.'

In this sense, it doesn't mean financial at all. (Although I've always joked that the reason Presbyterians say "debts" while everyone else says "trespasses" is that Scots are more worried about who owes who money.)

FWIW, the original Greek uses a word (ὀφειλήματα) that translates into English as "debt." Apparently, in Aramaic, the word for debt and the word for sin are the same thing. In this context, "debts" means "sins" -- shortcomings for which reparation is due. Perhaps it's just my upbringing, always having said "debts/debtors," but it has always seemed closer to the mark for me than "trespasses/those who trespass against us." "Trespass" has it's own connotation in English -- going onto someone else's property without permission.

If connotations are the worry, then the appropriate translation, it seems to me, is "forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us," as that is clearly the meaning.