As a Catholic born almost two decades after the Second Vatican Council I am always interested in historical contexts, patterns, trends, etc., which help me make sense of the liturgical present. Archives and access to the same are key in this respect. I fear the results of the electronic communications age when records are not purposefully composed or are simply disposed of all together. The result can be a history misrepresented, or lost altogether. In the act of human narrative an ethos, dare I say a “spirit,” of an event, is captured and communicated. This said, I was intrigued to read the founding narrative of the FDLC and to consider what its story of the first English translation of the Roman Missal might tell us regarding the current translation process.
Here is an official FDLC account by (Rev.) Jack P. O’Brien.
James Hadley is a PhD Candidate in Liturgical Studies at Saint Patrick’s College, the Pontifical University of Ireland.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Chapter I, CHICAGO, November 1968
Although many diocese had liturgy commissions of one kind or another, active and inactive, prior to Vatican II, certainly as a result of that Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, both because it specifically states that there should be liturgy and music commissions in every diocese, but also because of the enormous work necessary to implement that Council’s liturgical reforms, nearly every diocese in the U.S. had by 1968 either a commission or someone (usually a J.C.D.) especially deputed to be responsible for liturgy. These were invited to a meeting in Chicago, jointly sponsored by the B.C.L. and the liturgy commission of the Archdiocese of Chicago.
The purpose of this meeting was to equip liturgy commission personnel so that they could go back to their respective dioceses and implement the so-called “new Mass” of 1969. We expected to be taught, so that we in turn could go home and teach others. Because this didn’t happen, the F.D.L.C. was conceived. But I am ahead of my story.
The convention was very well organized, both the BCL and the Chicago commission having done their preparatory work well. Chicago was a perfect place to hold the meeting. Advance notice and registrations were sent out in ample time; space, agenda, and liturgy was (sic) arranged for. Over 300 delegates came, plus quite a few “extras.” The meetings were held in the Conrad-Hilton. Many people have considered this meeting the first F.D.L.C. […]
Among the highlights of the convention were talks, exercises and question periods by Fathers Joe Champlin, Robert Ledogar, Eugene Walsh, Paul Byron, Neil McEleny, Fredrick McManus, and others. Bishop John J. Dougherty of I.C.E.L also spoke to us.
There was a very happy and enthusiastic spirit among the conventioneers, at first, I think one of the reasons for this was that many attending the meeting were happy once again to be taking part in a truly liturgical meeting […]
Despite all the thorough preparations and the grand spirit of the delegates, a couple “untoward” things happened (not necessarily in sequence but grouped together in subject matter). First the delegates were bawled out, and I mean really laced down, by two members of the American hierarchy, Cardinal Cody and Bishop Leo Byrne of St. Paul. One of the occasions for this “dressing down” was the “far out” convention Mass (which the delegates had not planned). The bishops didn’t like the “communion-in-a-basket”, the flutist in a slinky skirt and hipboots. The other occasion was just a general scolding for being a part of the “lunatic fringe”, rabble rousers, revolutionaries with no respect for rubrics, canon law, grace, or anything that’s good and holy.
This put us into a very bad frame of mind to hear an announcement which went something like this: “you’ve come here to learn about the new Mass, but the translation has not yet been approved by Rome, and so what you will learn is minimal.” At first we were stunned. It seemed unbelievable that we should be called together from all parts of the country for the sake of the “new” Mass when the translation was not even available! […]
No explanations were given for the translation not yet being approved, only that it was an unduly long time. My first thought was of the Collectio Rituum of 1954: how long we waited for its approval, the personal efforts of Archbishop-Bishop Edwin V. O’Hara towards its final approval and publication, and how after his sudden death some of our own American bishops trying to prove their “loyalty” to Rome had the Collectio withdrawn and a “mostly Latin” ritual requited in its place! I wondered if some of them with real clout in Rome were not “monkeying around” again and “going over the heads” of the collective decision of the American bishops in an effort to get less English than was originally agreed upon.
In the lobby and halls of the convention hotel all kinds of theories were being adduced for the delay, possibly as foundationless my own: “Maybe there is trouble with other English-speaking countries providing different translations”, “Maybe they haven’t returned yet from their villas”,
“Possibly they are trying to find an Italian who knows English well enough to pass judgment on the I.C.E.L. translation”, Maybe somebody across the sea or on this side of it doesn’t trust us, and figures if we get copies of the translation we’ll begin to use it before the approved date”, “As usual they want to spring the new translation on us the last minute so we won’t have a chance to prepare music, decent copy, or explanations”, “Possibly they fear that if there is too much time between the translation’s release and the target date, we’ll have an opportunity to complain about a word here and there.” In any event our dismay was gradually turning into anger.
Fathers Fred McManus and Joe Champlin did a masterful job, everything they could do to supply us with as much information as they dared about the “new” Mass, but the Mass itself remained shrouded in mystery. Obviously the B.C.L. had expected the translation to have been approved long before this, and no cablegram seemed effective in hurrying up the process. We all felt that they would not have called us together had they known that the translation would be so long in being approved. We were to a man in admiration of Fathers McManus and Champlin in their efforts, but we still smarted from being raked over the coals by the bishops and seethed in disappointment.
We were still in this frame of mind, when on the last day of the convention, the meeting took place where the idea of a “federation” was first voiced aloud. […]
I remember vividly the very moment of the F.D.L.C.’s conception. […] Suddenly Father [John] Beno jumped up and in an angry voice so loud it all but rattled the recessed light fixtures of that low-ceilinged room, shouted something to the effect that if the BCL wasn’t going to teach us better and if we were going to have to put with all this gruff (sic) (it may have been another four-letter word), then maybe the diocesan commissions ought to form our own organization and give mutual help to one another. […]
For a moment Fred McManus was non-plussed. He obviously sensed the anger, not only in John Beno’s voice, but also that of the hushed crowd. Our silence thundered for a response. The expression of his face seemed to reflect our own never-voiced-though: “We have been accused of rebellion by the bishops present; here is a little taste of it.”
Not a soul stirred. Although we sat on the edges of our chairs, they did not creak. […] After what seemed like minutes, but was probably only seconds, a figure stepped up from the back of the stage. It was Joe Champlin. He took the mic from Fred McManus and gave a sure and affirmative answer, something to the effect, “Yes, absolutely, such an organization would be possible and would be welcomed. It would not only provide means of instruction and communication (from the top down) but also a means of grass-roots ground swell (from the bottom up).”
In the space of a few seconds the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions was conceived: Beno planted the seed and Champlin added a dimension. […]
FDLC Minutes, 1977. FDLC Archives. The American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives: The Catholic University of America.
Please leave a reply.