WDTPRS: Collect – Immaculate Conception

Here is the Collect for the Mass for this day’s feast, the Immaculate Conception, in the 2002MR.

Deus, qui per immaculatam Virginis Conceptionem
dignum Filio tuo habitaculum praeparasti,
quaesumus, ut, qui ex morte eiusdem Filii tui praevisa,
eam ab omni labe praeservasti,
nos quoque mundos, eius intercessione,
ad te pervenire concedas.
Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

The corrected version of the Roman Missal prepared in 2008:
O God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
prepared a worthy dwelling for your Son,
grant, we pray,
that, as you preserved her from every stain
by virtue of the Death of your Son, which you foresaw,
so, through her intercession,
we, too, may be cleansed and admitted to your presence

Here is the…

you prepared the Virgin Mary
to be the worthy mother of your Son.
You let her share beforehand
in the salvation Christ would bring by his death,
and kept her sinless from the first moment of her conception.
Help us by her prayers
to live in your presence without sin

You decide.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Gregorius says:

    I choose the first one :)

  2. RichR says:

    Very succinct commentary.

    Very accurate commentary.

  3. Magpie says:

    I prefer the 2008 one. I hope that the translation is ok. If they mess it up, the liberals will be mad, and the orthodox will be mad. Nobody seems to know who’s meddling with it. I hope it’s not the Masons. I’m serious!

  4. Supertradmum says:

    I never hear the NO priests say this out loud. And today, the NO choir sang “Gentle Woman”, the song I hate the most after “They’ll Know We Are Christians…”, or maybe after “Servant Song”, or maybe after “Let There Be Peace on Earth”, or maybe….

  5. drwob says:

    The ICEL version really makes the connection between the Immaculate Conception and Jesus’ Death quite murky. Also, the reference to final Judgement at the end is dropped entirely. Pretty clear example of why a new translation was needed.

    Sadly, as Supertradmum says, not nearly enough people will probably get the chance to hear it.

  6. Deo volente says:

    I share your concern. I read the post by “His Hermeneuticalness,” Fr. Finegan, on the “phantom translation” as well as what the New Liturgical Movement had to say in detail. I am concerned that the beautiful (nay awesome) translation given above for 2008 and confirmed by the Bishops in the English-speaking countries may indeed end up as an amalgamated mess. I pray that this is not so!

  7. JMody says:

    This is one where you could suspect that it is just a bad translation — mabe they were aiming it at first-graders, or maybe they consulted certain trout-men with an unmitigated abhorrence of bombast, needless repetition, and ineffable communication.

    However, like most of the other instances, it is also really close to the point of lending some credence to the allegation that the ICEL version might be less a bad translation and more a dishonest paraphrase. What motive lurks in the minds of people charged with translating this who see this result and say “Ah, THAT’S it” ???

  8. Salvatore_Giuseppe says:

    While the new versions is undoubtedly an improvement over the current with its tone and diction, I do see where some people have problems with its syntax… Take for example, the second half of the prayer
    “grant, we pray,
    that, as you preserved her from every stain
    by virtue of the Death of your Son, which you foresaw,
    so, through her intercession,
    we, too, may be cleansed and admitted to your presence.”

    The main sentence there is “grant that we may be cleansed and admitted to your presence.” which is interrupted by the sidetracks of “as you preserved her from every stain y the virtue of the Death of your Son, which you foresaw.” and “we pray through her intercession”.

    Also, the word so seems really out of place and I can’t seem to see how its grammatically correct, but I’m not an English major. It to me almost seems to be used in the vulgur “anyways, back to the point”, kind of way, although I assume that was not the intent.

    I realize that it is done that way to be faithful to the Latin, but at the same time, Latin and English are different languages. Nothing would be lost simply by rearranging the phrases. Just as we wouldn’t expect a translation from German to keep the verb at the end of the sentence.

    I could propose, for instance:

    O God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
    prepared a worthy dwelling for your Son,
    [and] preserved her from every stain
    by virtue of the Death of your Son, which you foresaw,
    Grant, we pray, [that] through her intercession,
    we, too may be cleansed and admitted to your presence.

    I added the ‘and’ and ‘that’ in brackets, as well as deleted the ‘so’ and an ‘as you’ where I inserted ‘and’. In my opinion it keeps all the same language and meaning, but puts it in a way that, especially when only heard, can be followed much more easily.

    Just my 2¢

  9. ghlad says:

    I think I finally found the ICEL translation team! At the Rice University chapel’s mass tonight, there were two different camps of people during the Gloria… the “His people” people and the “God’s people” people. It seemed as if they were arguing by vocalizing the word as loud as possible. Very annoying. But beyond that, very difficult to even try to focus on worshipping our Lord. I think it’s a bit funny that most of the “God’s people” people are crusty old (but hip!) greyhairs, while almost all of the college students were singing “His people.”

  10. Girgadis says:

    I was fortunate to have heard the first version presented here. But I was thrown off-guard a bit by a second collect, which was for the commemoration of the Advent Feria. On Sundays when a feast has been transferred, I have heard two collects sung, but never during a weekday Mass for a holy day of obligation, such as today. I’m not complaining, I’m just wondering why both were sung.
    Supertradmum, I feel for you. With all the beautiful Marian hymns that could be sung, I don’t know why anyone would want “Gentle Woman” or “Servant Song”. The latter does such a disservice to the Magnificat, it should be a sacrilege to sing it.

  11. moon1234 says:

    Clorox really should study our Blessed Mother more intently. She was preserved from ALL STAIN. How did she DO that? Wait, I think they meant stain OF SIN. I guess we really don’t need to talk about SIN anymore.

    Here is the 1962 version:
    O God who, by the Immaculate
    Conception of the Virgin, didst
    make her a worthy habitation
    for Thy Son, and didst, by His
    foreseen death, preserve her
    from all stain of sin; grant, we
    beseech Thee, that through her
    intercession we may be cleansed
    from sin and come with pure
    hearts to Thee. Through the
    same our Lord.

    Now which do you prefer.

  12. moon1234 says:

    What is funny is that the LATIN version is identical to the 1962 version. I guess the english translators from 100 years ago knew better. WHY oh WHY can they not just translate it properly.

  13. Bruce says:

    I have some great news!
    Tonight at Saint Mary’s Cathedral Basilica Halifax N.S, Brother Francesco Pirisi of the Franciscans of Halifax was Ordain to The Priesthood by Most.Rev. Anthony Mancini. There were over 500 people at the Cathedral. It was a wonderful Ordination. Please pray for Father Francesco who is the first F.O.H. to be ordained. The Franciscans of Halifax were started over 5 years ago by Father Roberto Donato and have been a great blessing in the diocese.

    Alma Redemptoris Mater, quae pervia caeli
    Porta manes, et stella maris, succurre cadenti,
    Surgere qui curat, populo: tu quae genuisti,
    Natura mirante, tuum sanctum Genitorem
    Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab ore
    Sumens illud Ave, peccatorum miserere.

  14. Salvatore_Giuseppe says:


    interesting, that translation is more similar to the one I posted, and you say that that structure is more identical to the Latin.

    I can’t verify your claim, but if that’s the case, my point about the new translation being unclear due to all the interpolated phrases seems even stranger. I just assumed they were following the Latin structure, but based on your claims, they rearranged them, sticking phrases where (in my opinion) they make no sense.

  15. Sliwka says:

    The currect ICEL translation is so dumbed down I honestly have a hard time understanding it comapred to the 2008 translation. Anyone who has read a book more complex than a Dan Brown novel is accustomed to reading very complex syntax like the 2008 translation.

    Does anyone else think it is odd that the Lame Duck ICEL uses two periods prior to the petition whereas the Latin and 2008 incorporate the Marian pronouncements into the petition?

  16. Legisperitus says:

    The difference between “be[ing] cleansed” and “liv[ing] without sin” is quite significant; another example of the Pelagian tendencies in the lame-duck translation.

  17. Henry Edwards says:

    Supertradmum: I never hear the NO priests say this out loud.

    I’m not sure what you mean. What sort of prayer do/did you hear as the Opening Prayer (collect) immediately following the Gloria? (Or immediately following the penitential rite on days with no Gloria.)

    In many Novus Ordo Masses over the years, I don’t recall (even a single time) ever hearing anything read at this point other than the apparently proper opening prayer in the Sacramentary.

    The priest whose Novus Ordo Mass I currently attend most frequently always reads two collects — the proper collect of the Mass at its appointed place (as above) and a secondary collect (e.g., that of a saint for that day, or of the BVM on a Saturday) as the priest’s prayer concluding the prayers of the faithful.

  18. ASD says:

    that, as you preserved her from every stain by virtue of the Death of your Son

    I know that tThe Immaculate Conception of Mary wasn’t an explicit dogma until c. 1854.

    Question: When did that collect or that line first appear?


Comments are closed.