Coming soon…

This past weekend in Perth, WA (Feb. 3-7), Australia’s National Liturgical Council sponsored a National Liturgical Conference for diocesan liturgy representatives to discuss the implementation of the new translation of the MR3 (Missale Romanum editio tertia).  The gathering heard addresses by Archbishop Mark Coleridge and Monsignor Bruce Harbert (both involved with ICEL) and various others about the current status of the MR3 translation, the task of the translator, and where we go from here.

As part of the conference we were privileged to have a sneak-preview of a DVD-ROM that is currently in final preparation in Melbourne under a mandate from ICEL.  This DVD-ROM will serve as a formational and informational resource for the Catholic English-speaking world not only on the MR3, but also as a comprehensive catechetical resource on the Eucharist.  Some very prominent theologians and Church leaders have been interviewed as part of this resource, e.g., Monsignor Kevin Irwin, Monsignor Bruce Harbert, Archbishop Mark Coleridge, Fr. Paul Turner, Sr. Julie Upton, Sr. Janet Baxendale, Fr. Paul McPartland and a range of others, along with bishops and liturgists from many English-speaking countries (the range of accents is delightful!).  Among an extensive range of materials, the DVD-ROM will contain videos of the experts interviewed, and MP3 files of the chants of the MR3, written resources and footage of liturgies from around the English-speaking world, printable music files of the chants, comparisons of the current and new translations of the Missal and a range of other useful teaching and explanatory tools.  From what we heard, it became clear that this DVD resource is going to be a very comprehensive and useful addition to the local expertise available to aid the English-speaking countries as we work to implement the MR3 and engage fruitfully in the opportunity for liturgical renewal and education that the introduction of the MR3 will offer.  Some information on the ICEL DVD-ROM resource can be accessed here.

While a wide variety of perspectives on the MR3 was represented at this conference (from those who do not want anything to do with it to those who are eagerly awaiting its’ implementation), by the end of the conference the majority of delegates seemed to have reached a point of recognition that the transition to the MR3 is going to happen, it is going to happen soon, and as the ones who are going to have to implement and explain the MR3 in our dioceses and parishes, we need to begin now to prepare ourselves adequately to undertake what is clearly a large and somewhat daunting task.  A date of April 2010 was suggested as the possible date for reception of the recognitio from the CDWDS.  Forecasters estimated a further year for printing and distributing of the MR3 before implementation could begin.

I presented a closing address on ‘Managing Liturgical Change’ in which we considered the psychology of change; and how people react to change when it is imposed on them without consultation compared with how differently people react to change when they are invited to become a part of making it happen.  It was suggested that helping people to become a part of the decision-making process regarding how the MR3 is to be implemented would be one way to help them to ‘own’ it somewhat more as they transition away from the Missal of Paul VI and into full use of the MR3.

Things are going to move very quickly in terms of the transition to the MR3 once the recognitio is granted, and that date looks to be not too far off.  The better prepared we are with practical strategies that will help our assemblies to move to its usage, the less traumatic the change we must face will be.

Clare Johnson

Clare V. Johnson is Senior Lecturer in Sacramental Theology and Liturgical Studies at Australian Catholic University, Strathfield NSW. Clare has a B.Mus (Hons) from the University of Melbourne, a B. Theol (Hons) from the Melbourne College of Divinity, an M.A. Theol from Catholic Theological College at Chicago and a Ph.D. (Liturgical Studies) from The University of Notre Dame (Indiana).

Please leave a reply.

Comments

15 responses to “Coming soon…”

  1. Graham Wilson

    I am amazed how, with enough spin, even intelligent people can be duped into believing that this translation is anything but what it truly is – a linguistic crock. Are we really expected to believe that this translation represents the pinnacle of Catholic liturgical translation?

    When I studied liturgy I was taught that “faux was never good enough for the liturgy”. For this translation “Nothing but the best” seems not to apply to the English, which any English speaker can tell you is serious deficient (and faux) in places. And now we rationalise that this is actually a good thing, or at least ignore the assault on English, and insult to its speakers, all in the name of recovering the sacred, recovering the hidden depths of meaning. Heaven help us! We’re covering up meaning by making the sentences more difficult to understand. We’re commiting modern-day hocus-pockery.

    I just can’t believe how intellectually impoverished and seriously devoid of good common sense we have become in our acceptance of this, nay, our embrace of the advice to “Drink the Kool Aid”. People – wake up! This translation cannot but be fatally flawed because its English is so seriously deficient, chained as it is, word for word, to a foreign Latin syntax.

    Reply
    1. Edgar Borchardt

      Graham

      From a pure marketing approach the only reason advanced for the new translation is that it ‘is more faithful to the Latin text’. Even if the demands of Lit. Auth. had produced a grammatical, proclaimable and prayerful translation it would still be difficult to ‘sell’ since there is no felt need among the people for a change. Given the above, what is a pastor to do?
      While I agree with you as to the quality of the new sacramentary, the question remains, what to we do? Do we refuse to use the new Sacramentary? Do we educate our parishioners on the defects of the translations? How do either of those responses serve the people in the pews?

      Reply
      1. Graham Wilson

        – what do we do? –

        1. We make our objections known to pastors and bishops. Write to Rome.

        2. We point out that the root of the problem the disrespect for the English language and its speakers (and ultimately for the Mass itself) in Liturgiam Authenticam’s translation daftness. Fix L.A. and we can fix the translation.

        3. This requires a pastoral solution. We give parishes the choice: continue to use the old, but more modern translation, or use the new, but antique. Some parishes in South Africa have gone this route.

  2. Jordan Zarembo

    Well, someone on the traditional side of the divide, like me, can now breathe a sigh of relief that the Canon and other prayers actually resemble the Latin to a greater degree and imparts the meaning of the prayer more accurately. Sometimes I read the Latin while I’m at the Ordinary Form. I always cringe at the discontinuity between the Sacramentary and the Latin. I just can’t get over how much was glossed over in the last forty years.

    There are only three ways to stop the impending warfare over the Sacramentary vs. the English Roman Missal. The first is to mandate the new Missal’s use, which we conservatives will love but at the expense of others. The next option is to hope that the Pope issues an indult similar to _Ecclesia Dei_. In other words, grant an indult for bishops to permit certain parishes to use the Sacramentary (this would also regularize illicit use of the Sacramentary). The final is to let both translations live side by side. This would create a balkanizing scenario within the Anglophone world. But hey, the Roman Rite is already balkanized, with multiple sub-uses and forms. So why not just complicate the mix?

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      “In other words, grant an indult for bishops to permit certain parishes to use the Sacramentary …”

      No thank you; Rome can have this. What I would be interested in utilizing would be the 1998 translation of RM2.

      Perhaps now is the time to seriously agitate for Roman Missal IV. Even a good translation can’t mask the flaws in the current Missal, most notably the lack of harmonization with the three-year Lectionary cycle. We need the best for the Roman liturgy worldwide, and speaking as an American, I don’t want to ignore minimize the problems of liturgy and evangelization and inculturation in other corners of the globe with a focus on “my” problems. The curia has demonstrated ineptitude time and time again on liturgy. If only there were a way to take this all out of their hands.

      Reply
      1. Jonathan Shea

        I suppose that technically we would be on MR3a, since the Vatican released a corrected Latin text of the 2002 Missale Romanum. In addition to correcting some mistakes, it also includes an order for an extended Vigil of Pentecost (yay!).

        If we were to go on to a MR4, it would probably be either a) to include newer saints’ days (which was a major reason why we needed the Latin edition of RM3) or else b) to restore the original prayers that were retained from the 1962 Missal, but doctored for MR1.

  3. Jeffery BeBeau

    I suppose Graham has highlighted the pointed Clare raised in her post about some being fundamentally opposed to the new translation and some who can’t wait to embrace it. I am very much looking forward to it, not necessarily because I find that it is “the pinnacle of Catholic liturgical translation,” but rather because of the weaknesses and deficiencies in the current translation. On any level that I can see it the proposed translation is better than the current one. Having read through every prayer in the new translation, I don’t find it fatally flawed. There are many points in the debate about what constitutes good English, what is acceptable and what is not, at what level the language of the translation should be, the intricacies of grammar and syntax. In the end, am I one of those intelligent people who have been duped, I don’t think so. I just believe that people of good will can disagree about things, but I think it is more important that we remain people of good will. As Clare noted, this new translation is coming, let’s prepare for it the best we can.

    Reply
  4. Jeffrey Herbert

    No, I don’t foresee any kind of “indult”, even if it were possible canonically. This is not a new “Missale Romanum”, just a new translation, so the principle behind Ecclesia Dei or Summorum Pontificum don’t really apply.There are already different translations of the Missal in different languages. That there could be two distinct and highly contrasting translations of the Missal in a single language would only serve to highlight the deficiencies of one or the other.

    It is a strange moment in which I find myslf agreeing with Todd…perhaps time for MR4 has come. Even the Latin of MR3 is not what it could be, and revising the entire source text could solve the problem of comparing the old with the new such as we find ourselves doing now.

    Of course, there are those who have suggested that such might be one of many reasons behind the new translation to begin with.

    Reply
  5. Jonathan Shea

    This may be a bit of nitpicking, but I believe it ought to be addressed. Toward the end of the article, you stated:

    “It was suggested that helping people to become a part of the decision-making process regarding how the MR3 is to be implemented would be one way to help them to ‘own’ it somewhat more as they transition away from the Missal of Paul VI and into full use of the MR3.”

    I would not want to debate your suggestion (which I think would help the people ease into the transition), but rather the terminology employed. The dichotomy of “Missal of Paul VI” and “MR3” appears to give the impression that there is no real connection between the two editions. While neither term is necessarily incorrect, it seems more proper to refer to them as either “MR2” (which, like MR1, was promulgated under Paul VI) and “MR3”, or else “Missal of Paul VI” and “Missal of John Paul II”.

    There was an earlier article on this blog about the problematic term “Novus Ordo,” a term which I had used until reading that article. As pointed out there, it carries with it a negative connotation which ought to be avoided. I believe a similar negative connotation could be carried out in juxtapositions such as that described above. This is especially so because, in the typical editions, little is added to the 1975 Missal in the 2002 Missal.

    Reply
  6. Clare Johnson

    Thanks for the comments offered on ‘Coming soon.’ Obviously people are at very different points in their thinking about the forthcoming MR3 – this is to be expected. As the post indicated, the full range of perspectives in reaction to the impending implementation was represented at our conference too. Various people looked to be experiencing Kübler-Ross’s different stages of grief in relation to the MR3 implementation (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance). Where some clearly are still fighting the imposition of the MR3 as hard as they can, more have moved to a point of acceptance, recognizing that for them, positions of ‘just say wait’ or maintain a ‘holy resistance’ are (sadly) most likely just going to be interim points along the road to eventual implementation of the MR3. This may sound like a defeatist mentality which some will find unacceptable. For others though, finding the strength to acquiesce to this decision that has been made by the hierarchy of our Church, and understanding that we can choose either to get on board and try the best we can to make it work, or be left behind, offers a less personally destructive option to consider.
    Having heard directly from some of those who were involved with the translating process, and who admit openly that the translations in parts do feel quite clunky even to them, it becomes clear that from their perspective, none of the factions involved in considering and voting on the translations got their way completely – everyone had to compromise on something. Perhaps the compromises have contributed to what some see as a deficient translation.
    What was rightly emphasized by those who spoke to our conference was that the introduction of the MR3 does present a wonderful opportunity for Eucharistic catechesis to be done very well this time, in ways that were not done when the MR2 was introduced. We are always free to choose our responses even to decisions into which we have had no input.

    Reply
  7. Jeffrey Herbert

    Clare;

    Not to be too contrary, but what exactly is there here that is so hard to “accept”? Is it just the wording…because while one may find it a bit awkward, I can’t see myself getting all “defeated” by having to use it? Or is it more of the feeling that the church is changing in ways that are perceived as unacceptable to some, and this translation is just the beginning of many changes to come? I only ask because I keep sensing a level of dread mixed with anger and outrage that seems incongruent with objecting to word choice and grammar issues.

    Reply
  8. Clare Johnson

    Jeffrey,

    As one of those advocating acceptance (even though I can see where the objectors are coming from, and share many of their concerns), perhaps I am not the one to answer your query regarding what is so hard to ‘accept.’ Read the responses to Paulus’ posting, and you will find the expressions of many who obviously find the change to come hard to accept.

    Change (of any kind) for some is hard to accept. Change to the words we speak and hear; changes to the feel, rhythm, imaginational categories evoked by the words; changes to the music settings of the Mass, changes to the lectionary translation (when it comes) etc., in short, major change of the only prayer some of us have ever known, is certainly something that will indeed take time, patience, repetition and practice for many people to be able to accept.

    Those who can make the transition to the new translation without feeling any sort of sense of loss of the familiar (what they know), are fortunate. The majority likely will find parts of this change to our prayer difficult to accept – some simply because it is new; others because they miss the old; some because they object to the manner of imposition and lack of broad consultation; others because they find the translation itself unfortunate. The dread you may be sensing in some of the posts stems from all of these reasons and more – my impression is that the level of dread stems from the deep emotional and spiritual attachment many people have to the current form of our prayer, and fear/anger/grief at its loss and its’ replacement with the new (yet to be experienced by most) translation. It is not just about word choice and grammar issues – it runs far deeper than that for many people, and the level of emotion attached to those depths is not to be underestimated.

    Reply
  9. Paulus

    I think Clare is spot on here. A central concern in what I was saying, and in the contributions of those who think like me, was the loss of something very dear: a sense that Vatican II, particularly in its liturgical changes, represented a symbolic shift from patterns of worship and Christian life that were deeply alienating and repressive (though quite unknown in their institutional form to anyone now under 45 or so).
    MR3 appears as a deeply threatening reassertion of a tyrannical spirituality, imposed by a high-handed, indeed despotic ‘Rome’. For Archbishop Coleridge this shift is something far more innocent: a recovery of the liturgy as primarily Christ’s action rather than our own.
    Psychologically, I am not really in a position to comment or elaborate (though I hope Clare may be). Theologically, much depends on how we think about grace. The Council of Trent presents grace, however much it’s a gift from outside, as transforming OUR reality; it insists that you cannot play off ‘God’s work’ against ‘our own’. It was Luther who presented grace as something separate, to which we relate, but which we do not in any way become. There is a holy ‘familiarity with God’ that ‘Vatican II’ has come to signify for those of us attached to the present ways of doing things. Both the Tridentine Mass and the Lutheran theology of grace are deeply attractive, yet ultimately less than fully Christian (a pastoral and more positive way of saying ‘heretical’). And there is a soundness about the Tridentine theology of grace, at least so far as our co-operation is concerned, that is taken up in Vatican II’s reforms as received in the English-speaking churches. This should not be (or have been) disturbed, but allowed to grow and flourish
    As long as you think that questions about liturgy are about choosing between our activity and God’s, then you are mistaken just as if you think you have to choose between Christ’s being divine and Christ’s being human. Orthodoxy consists precisely in seeing this choice as a false one. When MR3’s prelatial advocates use the rhetoric of ‘God’s action and not ours’, even with qualifications of the kind we find in Archbishop Coleridge’s posting, they are regressing to sub-Christian patterns of thought.

    Reply
  10. John Frauenfelder

    Having attended the conference about which Clare wrote and at which she spoke, I believe she offered an accurate assessment of procedings. However, in spite of what may appear to be the invevitable and the need to move positively towards the future, the disappointment of the Conference was the lack of explanation and opportunity for conversation and questions about that which was purported by keynote speakers, the Archbishop and Monsignor, to be a far superior text. I know many left the Conference unaware of why the new translation is superior and how to deal with that in a positive and pastoral manner. Many who were present were not aware of what the proposed new translation offered other than snippets which they have read in the secular press. From that point of view the Conference could have added value for attendees to assist them in enabling attendees to take a positive lead in the change process. It also raises the question of consultation which appear to hsave been left to a select group!

    Reply
  11. Bernadette Gasslein

    Last summer in a course I was teaching at Saint Paul University’s Summer Institute in Pastoral Liturgy, I gave one each of the new translations of the
    Eucharistic Prayers (downloaded from the USCCB website) to each of four priests in the class. Each was to prepare to proclaim it, and each did. The class had to listen for “Ah-ha”s and “Ouchs”, and the priests had to comment on the preparation process. Several of us have repeated this process with various groups around the country. It has taught us that it’s important to actually “perform” these prayers, rather than simply talk or hear about them; that preparation is vital, and that the translation can work AND that there are “ouches” that every group recognizes, as well as…

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Clare Johnson

Tags:

, ,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading