The Catholic Review of the archdiocese of Baltimore reports on one of their priests, Fr. Rick Hilgartner, who runs the office of the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship, now promoting the new missal after initial misgivings.
Baltimore priest helps nation’s Catholics prepare for new translation of Roman Missal
Comments
33 responses to “Baltimore priest helps nation’s Catholics prepare for new translation of Roman Missal”
-
Does anyone know:
1) Are these workshops provided “pro bono,” with the presenter receiving no fee, perhaps just travel, meals and printed materials costs?
2) If there ARE fees involved, and if the presenters were part of the preparation or approval process for the new translation (or, as the case may be, part of the “firing of the critics” process), would this constitute a conflict of interest?
3) If there is a fee, does anyone know what the going rate is?
4) If there is a fee, how can the rest of us get in on this? I daresay some of us Pray Tell commentators could over very thought-provoking workshops on the new Missal! Da Roberto’s isn’t getting any cheaper! Even in the Roman summer!
-
It’s probably just cranky skepticism on my part, but it’s hard to imagine that Fr. Hilgartner’s initial perceptions about the poor new translation didn’t “absolutely change” when he began working as a national spokesman for the bishops.
-
I read the article and looked at Fr. Hilgartner’s picture and thought “he sure looks like a candidate for bishop”. We shouldn’t expect company men to be any more than loyal to the people they work for–in this case a guy who may be a cardinal some day.
BTW, I have seen any number of comments on this blog about how people will adapt to this new translation just as they did to the first translation back in the early 70’s. But there’s a huge difference here. That first translation involved a contrast with what went before which was Latin. Most people approved of the switch to English without focusing on a critique of the translation itself. The MR3 translation seeks to replace one to which a great many have become attached–clergy and laity. We have learned to pray in English with that translation. If the one coming up was an obvious improvement, we wouldn’t be having all these conversations and debates. But while there are some who make a case for it they usually do so citing the authority of the church. I read, hear, and proclaim prayers for a living and I know a worse translation when I see, hear, and try to proclaim it.
-
That first translation involved a contrast with what went before which was Latin.
Weren’t there liturgical vernacular translations in use in the 60’s before the 1969 Missal was published?
The MR3 translation seeks to replace one to which a great many have become attached–clergy and laity. We have learned to pray in English with that translation. If the one coming up was an obvious improvement, we wouldn’t be having all these conversations and debates.
What makes you think that people who are attached to the old translation will want to trade it for any other translation, no matter how good it is?
-
-
““The language is self-deprecatory,” Father Hilgartner explained. “It is forcing a stance of humility before God.”
Given that the First person of the Trinity is modeled as “father” (or even “abba”), this makes me wonder what kind of family life these translators had growing up!
I am also rather suspicious that the language is forcing a stance of humility before the priest!
-
I’m surprised no one has made such remarks about Anscar Chupungco yet.
-
Yes, which even more surprises me, because Chupungco’s most recent book slams LA in a short section towards the end.
-
-
Do you really buy his explanation for “and with your spirit”? Back to the “ontological change”…..and isn’t it a dialogue or just a statement. (okay, Jungmann probably would say that it has been both in history)
-
Is the problem the emphasis on the ontological change, or that it is argued there is a ontological change at all?
isn’t it a dialogue or just a statement
Are you saying “is it a dialogue or just a statement”, or are you asking if it is a dialogue/statement in comparison to a third thing?
-
“ ‘The Lord be with you,’ is saying that the Lord is present in this gathering,”…. “The people’s response … – ‘and with your spirit’ – is an acknowledgment that the priest’s spirit has been configured and conformed to Christ by virtue of ordination to act as Christ presiding over the assembly.” When the priest says, ‘The Lord be with you,’ the people’s response is not some kind of “right back at you Father!” ——————————-
This explanation troubles me. I never had difficulty with “And with your spirit,” but I understood it as a response to one person who had just addressed a group of people. It would be awkward to say “The Lord [be] with all your spirits,” so the priest uses a brief form of blessing/greeting to the people. I never thought of the people’s response as their “acknowledgement” of a special relationship of the priest to God or of his “presiding.” Of course ordination confers the power to consecrate bread and wine, but is the response “Et cum spiritu tuo” a comment on that role? Why would such an “acknowledgement” be appropriate during communal worship? When Benedict XVI turns to God in prayer, does he present himself as pope? Does Fr. Hilgartner mention his priestly status in prayer? Prayer by persona–how many of us commoners have been doing it wrong all these centuries?
-
Mary,
I believe that this teaching was first found in the writtings of St. John Chrysostom.
Who it is that stands before God to offer sacrifice has always been important; that’s why God created a ministerial priesthood and even slew poor Uzzah for touching a sacred object that he was not permitted to touch. -
Yes, and let us not forget how the sons of Eli met a bitter end, and how Eli himself fell down dead, and how Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal, and how that great here of faith Phinehas speared the miscegenating couple.
-
hero of faith, I mean.
Of course there are no sacral priests in the Church of the new Testament. Christ alone is the priest and the entire people shares his priesthood. 4th century clericalism has a lot to answer for.
-
Joe – Do you know you can edit your comments for a few minutes after writing them? That way you needn’t make multiple (short) comments one after another, especially ones correcting those you’ve just written.
Of course there are no sacral priests in the Church of the new Testament. Christ alone is the priest and the entire people shares his priesthood.
… and some people have a different share in it than others.
-
In fact the explanation is an anachronistic flight of fancy. The valedictory remarks at the end of some of the N.T. letters are frequently presented as the scriptural basis for ‘and with your spirit.’ To suggest that the N.T. authors intended the notion of the recipients’ being configured and conformed to Christ by virtue of ordination is academic drivel. That alone would surely bar the author from being considered for episcopal ordination.
-
-
-
Brigid, I share your concern. There is an implicit theology in the tonality of this “self-deprecatory” prayer which is an entirely valid one. But as you note, it is far from the complete expression of our relationship with God in the new covenant. It is good for us to acknowledge the transcendance of God, but are we diminishing our awareness of God’s immanence at the same time? I don’t know if Fr. Hilgartner is calling for a posture of humility before the priest, but he certainly seems to place a much higher priority on his clerical brethren. It might seem snarky to simply consign Fr. Hilgartner’s change of view regarding this translation as the machinations of a true “company man” angling for a promotion, but unfortunately its a pattern we’ve percieved before.
-
“The language of the translation was more formal … The grammar was more complicated …” While more formal language may be appropriate for Eucharist, how is more complicated grammar conducive to better, more engaged worship?
“The priest seems hopeful that if Catholics spend time studying the text, they too will grow in their appreciation of it. He knows it won’t be easy.” It certainly would be good for the people in the pews to make this effort, but isn’t this a highly unrealistic expectation, given what we know about our fellow Catholics’ attendance habits and participation in adult faith formation activities? Why make it harder?
“Translators tried to get at the spirit and meaning of the text rather than a word-for-word translation.” Isn’t the former more likely to draw people into the heart of worship?
-
“Translators tried to get at the spirit and meaning of the text rather than a word-for-word translation.” Isn’t the former more likely to draw people into the heart of worship?”
Yeah, that’s obviously worked. I have found many people just plain board with the present hum-drum translation we have now.
I think that a word-for-word translation will really challenge the people in the pew to pay close attention to the orations. It might even cause them to go and buy a hand missal that they could follow along at mass and then even after mass read and meditate upon the rich treasurey of prayers that have been entrusted to us for our benefit and the benefit of the whole Church.
.-
It might be nice to have a hand missal with the current version and the new version side by side. The current version would clarify the new missal, and would make it easier to pray with the new missal.
Several times, I have scratched my head reading some words of the new missal, until I looked up the 1973 version: it is great as a help to understand the meaning of the new translation.
-
The orations are bad in the present trans, good in the 1998 trans, bad in a different way in the 2008 and 2010 trans.
-
Clair, I find that the current Prefaces clarify the incredibly obscure and ugly 2010 Prefaces. However, the collects, secrets and postcommunions are so flat in the current version that they hardly reflect the sinuosities of the original Latin at all.
-
Fr Sanchez, is English your native tongue? Have you a clear idea of how horrible the language of the 2010 texts sounds to civilized anglophone ears?
-
Joe,
Okay, so now English must be my second language at best; or I’m uncivilized; or I must be ignorant; because I favor the new translation over the old? That’s nice. God Bless you.
It seems that the problem a lot of people have on this blog, if they’re honest with themselves and get to the heart of the matter, is that they never agreed with the fundamental translation approach in LA; and so they have to bash and nit pick the new translation to death, and boast how they could have done so much better, in order to justify the former way of doing things that, in reality, has been tried and found wanting.
So, we have the new norms, and their proper implimintation in particular cases is very much a work of art. We could critique it in pride and boast that we are a far superior artist; or, we could admire the hard work of the extraordinary 10 year joint-effort of all the english speaking bishop (artists) throughout the world together with the Vatican (artists), and make the best use of an imperfect translation; as we’ve had to do with the last attempt for 36 years.
Maybe when I’m in my 70’s we’ll have another go at it, and do things differently. I, for my part, love LA.
A word for word translation, allows the text to gradually reveal its layers of meaning, allusion, imagery, and depth found in the originals. The fact that it’s not instantly understood is a plus in my book; For it encourages deeper meditation and wounderful ongoing illuminations given by God. In a word, it encourages deeper reflection.
I’d much prefer this, than another person paraphrasing to me what they think it means in plain English; just so it can be instantly understood and flow better. But, it’s just my opinion.
Oh, yeah. I’m a native English speaker.
Thanks for asking.
-
-
-
Fr Ruff, how you must rue the glorious and lucrative career you sacrificed by refusing to swallow your scruples. Had you lauded the new translation you would now be well on your way to a Bishopric or something.
-
I’d be careful assuming what Rick Hilgartner’s real motives are, or suggesting that he really wants to climb and become a bishop. Rick is well known as someone who supports good liturgy and is willing to work for that goal. He’s in a difficult position and wants to do the right thing. Lots of ways of trying to serve the Church through this missal difficulty. I’ve discerned that my way is to raise a critical voice. Others discern that their way is to try to make the best of it and help Catholics accept it.
awr -
We have already been presented on PT with the most sensible suggestion for the use of the new translation. That is, the current missal would continue to be used, while the costly new book could be kept as a reference in the sacristy, to enable presiders and other memebers of Christ’s faithful, who are not competent in Latin, to gain a more literal sense of the original text. Its function would be similar to that of the Greek-English interlinear editions of the N.T., which are used by scholars, who do not have much familiarity with the original language of the N.T.
In that way, the money spent on the new books would not be entirely squandered.
-
-2
-
I was trying to be circumspect regarding Fr. Hilgartner’s motives. I don’t know why he changed his view. Assuming he has the best and purest of intentions, the bald-faced careerism we have seen in others in the past unfortunatley makes the raised eyebrows in this instance difficult to avoid.
On a separate note, I’d like to try out an idea (please feel free to rip the idea to shreds if you choose, but leave the writer in one piece) Perhaps its because I’m a Roman Catholic working this summer at an Episcopal seminary, but I’m wondering if there is really any substantive reason why Anglophone Catholics could not have an option regarding the Eucharistic texts, something akin to the Rite 1 and Rite 2 options in the American Book of Common Prayer. If the real differences between the current texts and the new ones are primarilly rhetorical rather than doctrinal, is there any real hindrance? The idea of uniformity of rite would seem to be the obvious negative argument, but A) there was significant diversity in the Latin liturgy prior to 1570, and B) the current coexistence of the OF and EF would seem to indicate that uniformity of praxis is not an absolute. I admit that I’m very likely missing something, but I’m willing to stand corrected and edified. Pax et Bonum-
and have Anglophone Catholics choose from the Anglican Church of Canada’s excellent selection of eucharistic
prayers.-
And indeed, from the anaphora of the Church of Ireland, perhaps with the insertion of a prayer for the Bishop of Rome and the local Ordinary, to keep the diehards happy.
-
-
-
Maybe Fr. Hilgartner’s response was to the pre-fiddled-with text, from 2008 or thereabouts; maybe he hasn’t seen the totality of the changes to the text.
-
Paul, your suggestion is innovative and worthy of further consideration. I am in favour.
Anything to save us from the abomination of desolations.
-
I don’t know the Church of Ireland Anaphora. I’ll have to look it up this afternoon (the things we do to avoid the dissertation). I have seen some beautifully written prayers from the Canadian Prayer Book.
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.