PODCAzT 108: The new translation of the 3rd Eucharistic Prayer; Fr. Z digresses and rants

Herein we compare the lame-duck ICEL version of the 3rd Eucharistic Prayer now still in use with the new, approved and improved translation which we will soon be able to hear in our Churches.

The new translation of the Roman Missal will help the whole Catholic Church, whether people want to attend the newer form of Holy Mass or not.  When the tide rises all the boats rise with it.  Therefore, the implementation of the new translation is of paramount importance for the whole Church.

Thus, we hear today the lame-duck version and then the new version of the 3rd Eucharist Prayer.  Many people have read it, but… have they heard it?

In the reading of the two versions of the Eucharistic Prayer, I try to keep my personality out of the way and not impose too much on the text.  I just want you to hear the text.  Besides, far too many priests try to read with meaning… it’s like drowning in syrup.

I make lots of digressions and rant a bit about various topics.

For this PODCAzT I chose some music from 1966, just to give you some context and zeitgeist.  I do this because I include a text from a book published in 1966 by the famous architect of the new Eucharistic Prayers for the Missale Romanum, Cipriano Vagaggini.


103 10-05-24 The new translation of the 2nd Eucharist Prayer; Fr. Z digresses and rants
102 10-05-21 Exploring the new English translation of the Roman Canon; voicemail

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in PODCAzT, WDTPRS and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Onesimus2 says:

    Thank you!!
    It’s in the reading that folks will find the new translations much more coherent. Priests will have the tough job of re-leraning the words which they have found so easy to say and that may be a great benefit for their piety. Also, having a GOOD english translation will assist the scholars of the far future as they encounter a formal style of English rather than a culturally tailored and time bound rendition. (I want to establish a museum of liturgical kitch where the most flargant embarrasments of liturgical shennanigans and “art” might be put on display for the entertainment of folks — and a warning to how lousy things gain sway. The Musack in the place would be from the Weston Friary. It would be a stephen king meets liturgical trends sort of display. How’s that sound like a project?)

  2. MLivingston says:

    Another thank you! The music you chose really made me laugh … particularly “Got a Good Reason for Taking the Easy Way Out” on which I wish you’d elaborated. I guess I was hoping that in the revision there would be fewer “Eucharistic prayers” rather than just rewording them. Choice, choice, choice…options, options, options. Cafeteria Catholicism from the very altar. I hope the new words help.

  3. Magpie says:

    Great podcast Father, thank you. I think it would be a great opportunity to re-introduce aspects of Catholic practice such as kneeling for Holy Communion during the introduction of the new texts. It would be too good an opportunity to restore all the good things that were thrown out in the seventies to be wasted. I think it probably will be wasted, at least here in Ireland…

  4. Magpie: I think you are right.

    This time of the introduction of the new translation can be a time of a new introduction to Christianity and our worship.

  5. HighMass says:

    what else can one expect by to avoid the Roman Cannon E.P. #1 as we know it is associated with the TLM. Any thing they can do to distance us from the TLM. :(

  6. Mitchell NY says:

    Listening to all 3 Prayers with open mind and heart I have to say that I do not see how Kung’s “version” of the Roman Canon would have brought the Eucharistic Prayer closer to the people. It sounds overly inflated with anything but noble simplistic language. For all his supporters how do they defend this? If it were the Roman Canon originally before the Council, this would be the very thing they would have been attacking and striking down for its’ difficult, overly exhalted language. Far from noble simplicity. The lame duck version, well it is just that, lame. There is nothing special about it. Ordinary. The newer approved translation sounds much better. It strikes a tone with being both understandable and noble. In the end when translated as close to Latin as possible, you can see the hidden treasures that the Latin language has and the beauty of the Prayers. This has been obscured for years with the lame duck version. That being, perhaps, its’ greatest vandalism. Although I prefer to just stick with the Roman Canon, and in Latin because it has been good enough and nourished the faith for hundreds of years, I still can say that the new translation is like removing the whitewash over a beautiful mural. Something more is indeed exposed. But again, I am no “liturgy expert”, like Kung.

  7. Maltese says:

    [T]here will soon be available a new translation of the various texts, certainly improved regarding some verses, but I will not marvel at all if for other passages there will be more problems than in the first edition resulting from certain exegetical historical-theological eccentricities which I myself have already pointed out…From this [the anthropocentric nature of the Novus Ordo] comes the constant need of revisions, adaptations, and new translations. And this is exactly what has happened and continues to take place today. The loss of Latin was colossal…Bugnini again legitimized his position by declaring that :no part of the sacred action is justifiable in a language which the people cannot understand…If ever there was anyone who not comprehend the almost infinite spiritual capacity of man, and especially that of a popular religious character, it was him. Even if the people were not to make out the sound or the sense of the words, they would, however contemplate and adore in the presence of the sacred action and be spiritually involved…It must also be duly noted that at that time there was the wide use of bilingual Missals which put the people in a position to follow the literary unfolding of the sacred action in addition to the spiritual. Therefore the vague “yes” which Paul VI gave for the suppression of Latin is almost incomprehensible.

    Msgr. Gherhardini, “The Ecumenical Vatican Council II, A Much Needed Discussion.

    You can’t fix stupid, and stupid it was to suppress the Latin, no less try to create a mass which seems to almost focus more on man than God.

  8. Thank you, Fr. Z, for digging into this issue. This was a really interesting podcast.

  9. Kent says:

    Thank you for the podcast. Interesting as usual. I would be interested on your take on the 60’s music that you so often use. It is the sound track of my life and I do a double take to make sure that it isn’t my ipod playing. Do you use it in a belittling fashion or is there another purpose? [It’s a puzzle, ain’t it? 0{];¬) ] By the way even though (or because) 60’s music is the music on my ipod, as music director in our parish I have been on a many year crusade (against impossible odds) to introduce chant, polyphony and Latin into our parish music program.

  10. franciscanUTrad001 says:

    Great Podcast Fr. Z! I really enjoy listening to the new translations…now it just needs to get here sooner! All English speaking Catholics should be preparing for the new translation and your podcast provides an excellent way to do that. I hope that this new translation gets Catholics (especially close friends of mine) thinking more of Liturgy and the Graces provided to us through the Sacraments. On a side note, I always love your music selections for each podcast…you have got me listening to The Supremes right now! Thanks so much!

  11. moon1234 says:

    So when will the reform of the reform of the reform be out? 10-20 years? I still think it is funny that we are going through reform after reform followed up be a little more reform. How about just going back to the TLM and waving a good by to the great experiment?

    EP 1, 2, 3, 4….29,30, etc. Mass should not be this pick family style buffet where you go and decide (Hmm, I’ll have EP3 today, a little communion response 4 and throw in some reception of the blessed sacrament under both species. Ohh and some Eagles Wings for desert.

    The reform of the reform might have more accurate translations, but the underlying problems are still there. VII never called for an abandonment of the TLM. The young see this. I guess it will just take those over 45 to grow old and die before any kind of large meaningful return to Catholic roots can happen. This is depressing, but it seems to be the truth.

    I only hope that things do not get worse before they get better. This year in CCD we will be using more of the Baltimore Catechism. It is about time. Most of my eigth graders could not recite all 10 commandments at the start of last year. None knew what the four marks of the Church were much less what they mean. All of that was corrected in ONE CCD Year (which is only 12 1 hour sessions.) Previously they had been used the Apostolates Family Catechism. Which seems to be just O.K. It was waaaaaaaay to wordy and specious.

    Sorry for the diversion, but we need the liturgy to return to it’s roots. We need people to feel they are connected to the last 2000 years and not like the “New Mass” of the 60’s where it is pick your Mass parts on any given day.

  12. Sixupman says:

    “Similar manner” – “Like Manner”, the first grates, the latter ingrained in my auto-memory. Also dozens more like it and why the missing third comma at the Sanctus.

  13. asperges says:

    Although no fan of the New Mass in any language, this is clearly a great improvement and the sacrificial language is now much clearer.

    The scandal is that we in English speaking countries were ever exposed to the appalling, and deliberately distorted, translations in the first place by ICEL. Other countries did not suffer this way. French and Italian translations were (as I understand it), accurate, or reasonably so, from the start. Perhaps they thought the Pope(s) would not sufficiently understand the nuances of English as well as in romance languages.

  14. Dr. Eric says:

    Moon 1, 2, 3, 4,

    The Maronites have 72 Anaphorae. I don’t think that 4 is overkill. Having written that, I think that only the Roman Canon should be used at Holy Mass, at least on Sundays.

    Secondly, it would appear that EP III is the one that has been dummied down the most in the Lame Duck ™ translation.

  15. Dr. Eric says:

    Is it anaphorae or anaphoras?

  16. Dr. Eric says:

    Oh, and I would rather go to the EF than the OF any day of the week. But 99 44/100 of all Catholics go to the OF.

  17. Henry Edwards says:

    Moon1234: VII never called for an abandonment of the TLM.

    True, of course. The liturgical recommendations of Vatican II were directed solely at a revitalization of TLM practice, not at some unenvisioned “new order” of Mass.

    How about just going back to the TLM and waving a good by to the great experiment?

    Not going to happen. You can’t “go home again” except by starting where you are. Dr. Eric many have used 99 44/100 as a (literal) figure of speech, but it’s not a bad estimate of the percentage of Roman Catholics who attend the OF rather than the EF. And, as anyone who’s really worked on it knows, the TLM is a pretty hard sell even for many of the most orthodox Catholics who’ve known only the OF Mass.

    However, I’m convinced that the more sacral translation, together with the other Benedictine reforms underway, will help to pave the way.

    At any rate, reform of the reform of the reform is not only the way to go, it’s the only way we can go – to get the normative Mass back to anywhere near the ars celebranda of the TLM.

    So when will the reform of the reform of the reform be out? 10-20 years?

    You’re probably wildly optimistic. I’d guess 50 to 100 years of continuous “mutual enrichment” before the OF and EF converge of a stable rite much closer to the TLM (but most likely with vernacular options) than to the NO.

  18. FrCharles says:

    Thanks for this; very interesting. What’s most curious to me about Küng’s “canon” is the excision of the saints.

  19. wanda says:

    Thank you, Fr. Z. May the Lord bless and prosper all your work on behalf his church. Our archdiocesan newspaper is running a series on the up-coming changes to the prayers of the mass. I’m glad to know that there is some teaching out there for us, I’m not hearing too much inside our own church. Much gratitude to you, Father.

    Nice tunes! Made me want to boogie around the room, but my best boogeying days are behind me, I think!

  20. Maltese says:

    *True, of course. The liturgical recommendations of Vatican II were directed solely at a revitalization of TLM practice, not at some unenvisioned “new order” of Mass.*

    Very true, but I would say (and this is a great irony) we should actually be thankful to the concillium and Bugnini for this small reason: If, as VII called for, the TLM were tinkered with, and slowly changed, it might have disappeared into a mutated, adulterated form—a hybrid rite of sorts. Instead, by superceding it, the feverishly tradition-hating Bugnini actually thereby caused its preservation, as in amber (sheltered there by the likes of Lefebvre), to be discovered and revered anew, in its original form.

    Actually, if Vatican II was followed, and the TLM was “revitalized,” that would have been devastating. Msgr. Gherardini states that “[N]ot a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism.” He equates the Novus Ordo with a man-centered (anthroprocentric) rite, and not a God-centered Sacrificial rite, as is the TLM. So, not matter how much the Church gussies-up the NO, it will always be highly defective. You can take a Pinto, put a new paint job on it, perhaps tinker with its engine, but it will always be a Pinto.

    New and Improved Novus Ordo

  21. Thomas S says:


    Notice what else Kung omitted? The prayer for “N. our Pope and N. our bishop.” Shocker!

  22. Dr. Eric says:

    I did like the preface to the Sanctus that Kung added with the mentioning of the choirs of the angels, that was nice. The rest of it, not so much. I also noticed that Kung deleted any mention of the saints.

  23. catholicmidwest says:

    “I’d guess 50 to 100 years of continuous “mutual enrichment” before the OF and EF converge of a stable rite much closer to the TLM (but most likely with vernacular options) than to the NO.”

    Not sure it will take that long, simply because I don’t expect the future of the Church to be like the recent past region to region. European Catholicism has collapsed at an astonishing rate, and it will begin here shortly, I expect, if it has not already begun.

    Look, the strategy of “going along with the culture” has failed. The idea was that in order to manage modernity and prosper, people in charge thought that they’d negotiate it, compromise with it, work with it, even though it was contradictory in a particular fashion. The particular fashion in which it was contradictory was important because the competing paradigm that we have been working with says anything is alright except what went before. The competing paradigm doesn’t deny a set of ideas or beliefs as much as it denies the validity of something–the church and her truth claims qua claims. That’s the real issue.

    The “go along” strategy hasn’t worked and the reason is elementary. When faced with a competing paradigm about TRUTH CLAIMS, it’s always wiser to fight intelligently. It goes like this:

    In a dispute, you have the choice to fight wisely or compromise.

    If the crux of the matter is a business situation or other non-zero-sum proposition where truth is not the issue, but practical consequences are, then it’s best to compromise. This is so particularly when results are non-zero sum and if fighting is more expensive than compromise, both sides will benefit by not fighting. You compromise, you both get part of a bigger pie, albeit perhaps a smaller pie than if there had not been a dispute in the first place. Nevertheless, it’s less expensive.

    HOWEVER, if the situation is not a non-zero sum situation, ie it’s about truth, such that neither side can hold both sets of beliefs equally at the same time (compromise), then it’s better to fight wisely. If you fight, even wisely, it’s true you might lose. However,if you compromise severely (as we have done), you are guaranteed to lose.

    If you compromise and you come out on bottom, you lose. (few believe you anymore because you are beaten)
    If you compromise and you come out on top, you lose. (no one believes you anymore because you don’t have articles of truth to exhort, having become merely part of the landscape)
    If you fight and you are beaten, you lose (you are denounced, so few believe you)
    If you fight and you win, you win.

    Besides, we have passages in scripture that say that we cannot lose in battle, so why on earth would we choose severe compromise??? (Must have been sheer stupidity, that’s all I can think of as a reason.)

    Unfortunately however, this compromise strategy has formed the church aggressively for 40 years, and importantly for probably nearly a hundred. The catechesis, liturgy, music, education etc etc of the last 40 years have all been part of this compromise and almost everyone has been affected, some seriously compromised.

    We have a lot of repairs to attend to, and that will take time. We have an enormous obstacle to surmount and most of it we’re responsible for ourselves, sadly.

  24. catholicmidwest says:

    Besides, some think it’s cruel somehow to make people choose, and that’s sometime the implicit premise of the compromise strategy. On the contrary, choosing is what people do. We have souls and that’s what souls are for.

  25. catholicmidwest says:

    So, I like the new language. It’s clearer and does a better job of declaring what the Church believes with some linguistic precision, unlike the “lame duck” version which is very sloppy and imprecise. It enables people to see what’s going on in a much more comprehensive and proper fashion, because it is much closer to the actual Latin text linguistically. It’s much less of a “compromise” text.

    Don’t get me wrong: I recognize that the Mass approved by Rome is the re-presentation of Calvary and has that ontological purpose. All the approved rites of the Catholic Church do. This is key to Catholic worship. However, participation in the mass in other ways are also part of Catholic mass, and one of those modes of participation is recognition of truth claims and revelation. This mass is better than the NO in this regard, although maybe not as good as the TLM at this part. And after all, Lex orandi, lex credendi. As we pray, so we believe.

    But we are where we are; there aren’t enough TLMs to go around and many people aren’t ready for that and may never be as things currently stand. This is the work to be done: to bring as many people as possible to a Mass, as approved by the Holy See, which can feed their souls appropriately and truthfully.

  26. Henry Edwards says:

    cmw: But we are where we are; there aren’t enough TLMs to go around and many people aren’t ready for that and may never be as things currently stand.

    At least in areas where there are young priests and orthodox seminarians on the way, the problem I see developing is too many TLM priests for the too few people wanting to attend a TLM.

    In my experience, the more frequently heard story — of a bunch of TLM petitioners being denied — is the exception rather than the rule.

    More common, I think, is the case of a priest who would like to celebrate a TLM, but too few people in the parish want to attend it regularly. Typically, the TLM-ready priest is a young assistant who would like to have a regular TLM, but doesn’t find the number parishioners needed to support it (in the eyes of his pastor who has to balance resources)

    But this is why I foresee a slower return of the TLM than some may. Not because of any lack of priests who want to celebrate it, but because of not enough people wanting to attend it. (How things change! I can remember when no one would ever have envisioned this problem.)

  27. catholicmidwest says:

    We are lucky to have this problem. Young priests are not helpless here, rather, they have great power to influence the laity. Baptisms, for instance, are more beautiful in the Latin than in the English. Offer them for the beauty and memorability of the occasion, and some of the laity will come over, slowly but surely.

  28. Henry Edwards says:

    Baptisms, for instance, are more beautiful in the Latin than in the English.</b.

    We had a traditional Latin baptism in our parish this past weekend:


  29. catholicmidwest says:

    You know, in this fight of good and evil, it’s not like we don’t have potent weapons. Those pictures are wonderful, Henry. What a lucky child.

  30. Henry Edwards says:

    Yes, catholicmidwest, maybe one brick at a time, one baptism at a time.

    For those who’ve never witnessed one, the extraordinary rite of baptism differs from the ordinary form in that it is conducted mostly in Latin, apart from the occasional vernacular dialogue and responses of people and sponsors. It also is somewhat lengthier, the combined rites of baptism and blessing of the baptismal water occupying about 45 minutes, partly because of additional ceremonies of exorcism in which the priest explicitly commands (in the name of God) the devil and unclean spirits to withdraw and depart from the person about to be baptized.

    BTW, yours truly appears in the 9th photo down, just beneath a quoted exorcism formula. At extreme right in this photo–taken in the narthex before entering the church for the actual baptism at the font–you see a little girl and a woman wearing white chapel veils. Standing behind them, you can just barely see a gentleman wearing a long-sleeved light blue shirt. That’s me.

  31. Supertradmum says:

    My son ET was baptized in the EF in 1988 in England. One only had to ask and get permission at the time.It was fantastic and those who attended were impressed.

    And Henry, nice to have a face with a name…great photos.

  32. Jack Hughes says:

    Wished I’d been exorcised at Baptism – might have solved a few problems , Grrr – quick question (I’ve gotta go to bed) in a previous podcazt Father talked about the toungue being consecrated in the EF baptism to recieve Holy Communion – as someone who got the defective baptism does that mean that I recieve fewer graces when I go to Holy Communion?

  33. Jack Hughes: Never trouble yourself about that. Baptized is baptized is baptized, without question.

  34. Dorcas says:

    I have a question about the availability of these podcasts…I get them at itunes, but the previous ones are not available…is there a reason for this, and is it possible to get the older ones displayed for downloading? Even the ones I downloaded a few weeks ago are now gone…

  35. Maltese says:

    This is a good study appurtenant to this discussion:

    The Problem of the Liturgical Reform

  36. Henry Edwards says:

    Maltese, quickly, just on the verge of leaving for this Sunday’s TLM:

    It seems to me that the usefulness of “The Problem of the Liturgical Reform” is limited by the fact that it deals only with aspects of what “everybody” already knows–namely, what went wrong–but without suggesting plausible solutions, starting from where we are now (as opposed to where some might like to be, still “back there”).

  37. catholicmidwest says:

    Hello, Henry. It’s nice to have a picture to go with the posts. =)

  38. Maltese says:

    Mr. Edwards, I think one solution has already been implemented: Summorum Pontificum . Of course I’m of the school that the ultimate solution (perhaps decades or a century hence) would be a full, Church-wide, return to the TLM, and other venerable rites (e.g. pre-VII Ambrosian, Eastern Liturgies of long use, and organic development, etc.)

  39. catholicmidwest says:

    Yes, and I think that Pope Benedict XVI is working on the “plausible solutions” problem now. One can see that he is forging a path to more acceptable language on the one side and freeing the TLM on the other side. He’s creating the basic tools for the reform to occur, it seems to me.

    The problem, of course, is that when the decision was made to negotiate the culture instead of fight, expectations and structures were put into place, along with an entirely different set of beliefs about everything that wasn’t believed to be absolutely central by those doing the negotiating. (And it was never quite clear due to the language of VII who exactly was authorized to do the negotiating.) Thus many Catholics have very odd ideas about the faith, even though they are full-fledged members of the church (and sometimes even ordained). This will conflict with the reform in some ways and must be rectified without too much anger and disorientation. We must come back from the edge.

    The Church is, on many levels, highly averse to admitting that it has ever been wrong about anything. Yet, a distinction is going to have to be made, even if it’s a technical distinction known to few, that the Church, at some level, in some capacity, erred grievously after (and perhaps during) Vatican II. This is different than being wrong about everything and someone in high places is going to have to realize that in a concrete fashion and act on it.

    We’re lucky that PBXVI doesn’t have to negotiate a legislative body or anything like that because this is the Catholic Church. I think he is the one to do this task of telling the truth about what happened. Every indication is that he is the only one with enough candor and courage and he has done some of this already. [This one is the saint, I tell you.]

    PBXVI is taking care not to move too quickly because he doesn’t want a replay of the immediate post-VII years. But even then, as the reform proceeds, we are going to lose some and gain others, but it’s not like we’re not losing some already anyway. We’ve reached a tipping point of sorts where the losses due to decay of the faith are greater than the losses due to reform. Thus the time for the reform, because this is the time when it has become possible. And the return from the edge of the accommodation stance is past due. Benedict XVI knows this. And thus is proceeds apace, no matter what the dissident crowd, as well as their unfortunate and ignorant listeners, think of it.

  40. catholicmidwest says:

    Could eventually happen, Maltese, but it won’t be in our lifetimes. Too much water under the bridge and too much work to be done first.

  41. robtbrown says:

    This is a good study appurtenant to this discussion:
    The Problem of the Liturgical Reform
    Comment by Maltese —

    It has been a while since I read it, but it seemed to me a type of Counter Reformation Eucharistic Theology. I prefer St Thomas.

    I have great sympathy with the liturgical positions of the SSPX. Their theology, however, is another matter.

  42. Maltese says:

    He’s creating the basic tools for the reform to occur , catholicmidwest, I think much should be left alone at this juncture in Church history.

    It has been a while since I read it, but it seemed to me a type of Counter Reformation Eucharistic Theology. I prefer St Thomas. , robtbrown, interesting, but I’m not quite sure what you mean. I agree with the first sentence, but how does St. Thomas somehow fit-in?

    In fact, if anything, I think St. Thomas would agree with the FSSPX position. I refer to Q.83, At. 2, Part III of his Summa Theologica: [per usual, St. Aquinas starts with the objection that he will refute; the objection is “It seems that Christ is not sacrificed in the clebration of this sacrament.” and his response is:] “Augustine sayes in the Liber Sentent. Prosp. (cf. Ep. xcviii): Christ was sacrificed once in Himself, and yet He is sacrifice daily in the Sacrament. He goes much further, and references other sources as well.

    To me, this is compatible with The Problem of the Liturgical Reform

    Here are just a few things that book brings-up:

    *The mass is propitiatory. Is is the unbloody renewal of Calvary. Christ Himself offered Himself at Calvary, now priests offer Him. But the structure of the Novus Ordo is such that “the rite is no longer based on sacrifice, but on a memorial meal.”

    *The new structure of the mass (the Novus Ordo) has in place of the sacrifical structure (in the TLM) the structure of the Jewish meal berakah or blessing of the food. Of course, there is no problem with that at Jewish Temple, but we are talking of Catholic ritual. I actually have very good Jewish friends, so I only bring this up in context of Catholic mass. But in adopting the “memorial aspect of the Jewish Passover and leaving aide its sacrificial dimension. The link between the Mass and te Cross is thereby diminished, and its links with the Last Supper emphasized.”

    Anyway, the thrust of the book (or booklet) is very powerful and convincing: Instead of the unbloody Sacrifice of Jesus Christ (emphasized in the TLM), the Novus Ordo emphasizes “friendship” and a “community meal.” These are nice things to emphasize at a BBQ, but the Mass is the ultimate prayer of the Church.

    According to Bishop Fellay, the “[P]ost-conciliar liturgical reform, by its extension and brutality, represents a disturbing up-heaval, as a radical rupture from the traditional Roman liturgy. Above all, this reform contains disconcerting element, ambiguous and dangerous for the Faith.”

    Agree or disagree with that, one must acknowledge that the Church is in crisis-state.

    I would humbly submit that the Church might begin to dig herself out if she returns to her roots–to Her tradition.

  43. Jack Hughes says:


    Are you suggesting that the Church gave us an invalid Mass? I love the TLM but if I can’t get there I will go to the Novus Ordo

    Also who are you to judge if the Church is in a particular state of Crisis? That is why I left the SSPX once you start ignoring Peter then you substitute any number of authorities in his place: Fr Gruner, Michael Matt, +Williamson, +Fellay etc etc Please we must rememeber that the Church LIVES in perenial crisis; the Protestant Revolution, the rise of the mohamadeans, the great schism, the arian problem, French Revolution ect ect

    And for the Love of all that is Holy do not quote a man who for nearly 30 years has hammered the Holy Father and his predecessor whilst acting in a disobediant manner – if +Felley and his motley crew have any shred of respect for the Papal office they should bring their concerns to the table and leave Peter to deal with them; that is what Fr. Bisig et al did.

  44. Father S says:

    What is the “classical” music played during Eucharistic Prayer III: the CD, orchestra,composer, etc.? Somebody, please!

    I personally just like the way both Eucharistic Prayer II and III sound in the new translation. They sound beautiful to me. However, I think that Eucharistic Prayer I will take a little getting used to. I can’t put my finger on it, but it doesn’t lift me like II and III do.

  45. Maltese says:

    Mr. Hughes,

    Please accept as my apology any way I might have offended you.

    As you must know, I can’t properly respond to you given limited space; but given a good ale, I’m sure we could find agreement somewhere!

    God speed you! And perhaps we can drink to this

    Strong beer

  46. irishgirl says:

    Neat podcast as always, Father Z!

    Ahhh, the Mamas and the Papas, the Beatles, the Supremes [the girl group, NOT the Court, haha] and the Trogs….memories of my 1960s youth…hate to say it, but I liked that kind of music back then…well, maybe not the Trogs’ ‘Wild Thing’…. ; ) [hey, what do you expect? I was a dumb teenager!]

    Seriously, though….I like the new translations of the Eucharistic Prayers much better than the ‘lame duck’ ones. Sacred actions NEED sacred words!

    Henry Edwards-I saw the baptism pics! Very cool! And I did catch a glimpse of you in the background of one of ’em! As a few commenters have already said, ‘it’s nice to equate a face with a name’!

Comments are closed.