From Fr. Michael Brown at Forest Murmurs:
My experience too, when I was young and naive a few months ago and experimented with all of the Eucharistic prayers and priests parts that are available. These are more wordy but a vast improvement over the current, shall I dare say, lame duck version. I publicly asked for comments and everyone seemed quite pleased. I told them it is a more lofty English, not everyday speak–they got it, the laity are not stupid! They liked it, like Mikey with Life cereal.
People – can we please stop using “lame duck version” in reference to the 1973 translation. It disrespects and insults people, efforts, intentions and the Mass itself. Or are we going sink and wallow in a “lame duck” versus “overdressed turkey” quality of debate?
We know that not all clergy are as bright as we might wish them to be (I’m not referring to any priest in particular, by the way).
Here is an extract from a lay person, in a recent edition of the London Tablet:
I don’t consider myself either confused or bewildered [reference to CDW reactions to criticisms of the new text], I simply abhor bad or clumsy English. No amount of catechesis is going to make some of the phrasing in the new Missal intelligible or beautiful. If the English in the text was good, there would be no need for catechesis. [My emphasis]
I teach English and French, and believe that composing translations which faithfully convey the sense as well as being aesthetically pleasing is not only possible but essential. I accept that the current Missal is not without its faults but why compound the problem by giving us a new Missal which uses syntax that is cumbersome, does violence to the English language and fails to communicate the sense of the original Latin text?
Here is someone who has obviously seen a draft of the entire Missal, not just the Order of Mass. I can’t help feeling that Allan is going to change his tune when he is confronted with the full-blown hideousness of the cumulative effect of the new Missal, as opposed to the fairly anodyne new Order of Mass with which he is tinkering at the moment. There is quite a difference.
“Full Blown Hideousness of the cumultaive effect of the new Missal”
Wow! Tell me how you really feel!
I take exception to the statement “if the English in the text was good, there would be no need for catechesis.” Is this really what we believe as Christians? Does this same premise apply to the Sacred Scriptures?
I just don’t buy it.
Paul, as one who celebrates the EF Mass regularly, which is far more challenging for the congregation and me, I must say that the new English translation in its “commulative effect” will be a piece of cake. And yes, I did have to use my computer to look up anodyne! And I’ve now added it to my vocabulary like ineffable, gibbet and consubstantial! Sometimes though after the EF I do take an aspirin to alleviate the pain in my legs.
“If the English in the text was good, there would be no need for catechesis.”
Woefully wrong.
My years of praying the divine office are the only catechesis that I ever needed. I would give up all the hundreds of theology books and all the graduate theology courses I have attended if I had to choose between them and the divine office.
All of the parish catechesis that I have received beginning from catechism through all the homilies to the current parish programs have not been worth a nickel. They have been boring, boring, boring.
Almost all congregations in the USA down to the many very small ones have a worship service and a religious education program according to Chaves’ random sample study. I understand why church managers think its important to pass on the church culture and think congregations are about that.
The Vibrant Parish Life study showed that people’s highest priorities are liturgy and community. They think Christianity is about love of God and love of neighbor, and I agree with them. All the people who have been the deepest influences on my Christian life have not been church professionals.
Give me community not catechesis.
Jack – I agree – the worhipping community is the primary and most powerful catechetical vehicle in the Church. It’s so sad that so few really see this. That’s why this new translation is a huge disappointment from a pastoral (never mind linguistic) perspective.
Only comments with a full name will be approved.
“Full Blown Hideousness of the cumultaive effect of the new Missal”
Wow! Tell me how you really feel!
I take exception to the statement “if the English in the text was good, there would be no need for catechesis.” Is this really what we believe as Christians? Does this same premise apply to the Sacred Scriptures?
I just don’t buy it.
I imagine it violates some sort of blogiquette to merely say, Hear, hear!
But there you have it.
I don’t think I’m exaggerating. Hideous is what it will be. I do, I really do, want to be around on the first Wednesday of Advent to hear Allan saying
We implore your mercy, Lord,
that these divine provisions,
which have cleansed us of vices,
may prepare us for the coming feast.
Through Christ our Lord.
ignoring any sniggering in the congregation. I want to see if he can actually pray this text, and come across as praying it. And then I want to be around let’s say 10 months later when the cumulative effect of this sort of text has sunk into not only his consciousness but that of the congregation (if any are still listening by then).
We’ve all been talking about the comparatively harmless Order of Mass. The rest of the Missal is something else.
Perhaps I should have used the word “ghastly” instead of hideous. If so, I apologize.
As opposed to some of our current post-communion prayers–“May this meal have an effect in our lives.” I always thing what effect–weight gain, indigestion?
I am new here, and just got the flyer about the blog with my latest Liturgical Press order.
As a liturgy planner for my parish and a music minister(choir/ensemble member/cantor), I have taken a great interest in this topic since it was first being discussed.
To understand the logic WHY these changes are necessary, read two documents: Sancrosanctum Concilum and Liturgiam Authenticam. Next, go to the USSCB website for an explanation of the changes and the reasons behind them, as well as the sample texts for the order of the Mass with the scriptural references.
Even though I was not raised with the Latin Mass, I have celebrated them a few times in my life when I was visiting the Abbey of Getsthemene(Trappist monastery in Kentucky) and my local Benedictine monastery in Cleveland, Ohio. So I understand that “et cum spiritus tuo” means ‘and with your spirit’. If you look up the word consubstantial in the Catechism for the Catholic Church, the explanation can be found in #242. Also the footnotes indicate that the English phrases of “One being and “One in being” translate the Greek word homoousios which was rendered in Latin by the word, consubtantialis. Also and read #241 for an explanation of “visible and in visible”. My feeling is that perhaps “And with your spirit’ should have been used when the Vatican II Mass was conceptualized. They did throw the baby out with the bathwater.
“As opposed to some of our current post-communion prayers …”
Let remember many of us aren’t comparing the new with the present. They each have their ghastly moments. The argument against the new Missal is not a comparison with its forerunner, but with what could have been.
Todd,
it doesn’t matter what ‘could have been”. There are guiding principles LA lays out, and unfortunately, when Bishop Trautman was in the debate on this, he did not act in accordance with the norms of LA and there’s nothing that says that these changes must be intelligible. For more information go to the website of ICEL and read the article ‘ Music for the English Language Roman Missal:An Introduction, which for NPM members, it can be found in the June 2009 edition of Pastoral Music.
Of course it matters what could have been. And ideals about what could have been are related to ideals about what could be. Thinking about such ideals is called…theology. It’s also the purpose of this blog.
awr
And theology,Fr.Anthony is also thinking about those possibilities,coupled with what the Church has previously stated about these things. In other words, my point is, it doesn’t matter what our personal opinions are in this matter. The only thing that matters is what the Church teaches and has stated about these matters.That is why we need to check our personal opinions and beliefs with what the Church officially teaches and then as faithful Catholics, assent to these teachings, as P.25 in Lumen Gentium has told us to.
Tim, you are suggesting that all discussion is futile. What is happening in serious scholarly circles, in parishes, and on this blog among thoughtful people is a frank and critical discussion on the merits of how the CDWDS conducts its governance of the liturgy.
Additionally, the points being made here are more or less our opinions augmented by our collective understanding of Latin, and the liturgy. My assent to Church teaching doesn’t include my silence in the face of incompetence.
If you disagree, please go tell Fr Z that his ten years of WTHDTPRS is just his personal opinion and that he’s a meaniehead dissenter.
Fr. Anthony writes, “thinking about ideals” as it relates to what could be is the purpose of this blog. I’m glad that it is and that a variety of voices and positions can be heard such as Todd English above and mine, just to name two. It then stands to reason that what could be can cut both ways. What could it have been like if the Mass was not reformed at all? What could it be like if the EF overtook the OF, even in the new translation. What could it be like if all the popular devotions of the Church made a come back, vocations soared in the secular and religious priesthood, not to mention in religious life in particular and what would it take for this to be? What could it be like if Catholics became more unified under the pope, their bishops and priests, no matter who that pope, bishops or priests are, therefore bypassing the cult of the personality, not to mention the cult of “theology.” Then again I realize that since it cuts both ways, we could hear from those who wonder what it could be like if the Church could be gender neutral in the “Sacrament” of the Church a la Avery Dulles, as well as in all the Sacraments, including Holy Orders and Matrimony. What could it be like if Christ was genderless as well as the Blessed Mother, not to mention the Father and Holy Spirit. What could it be like with a very, very diverse liturgy based upon each congregation’s “cult of theology and personality” and that like Baptists down here describe themselves in terms of the ordained, anyone could be ordained, so much so, you shake a tree and 100 Baptist ministers fall out. That could solve our vocation shortage in a heart beat. I could ordain whoever I want and then I “could” go fishing, except I don’t like to fish.
Fr. Allan,
My name is TIM English , not TODD. But, I agree with everything you said.
Sorry TIM I do that with the Apostles names during the Roman Canon too! 🙂
I would hope we all agree that liturgy is prayer; that being said, I am in the midst of reading “Primary Speech: A Psychology of Prayer” by Ann & Barry Ulanov…two passages I read this morning really speak to the issue of our “new” (old?) English “language”:
p. 30:”All of us need to find & shape our name for God from our own encounters with the mystery, however large or small those meetings may have been. IN OUR LANGUAGE AND IMAGES WE RECOGNIZE THAT ALL THIS MAY CHANGE with the years, the kinds of encounter, the depth of penetration of the mystery, even the names and images themselves” [emphasis mine]
p. 31: “In idolatry we take the images we have of God as real in themselves instead of real images. It is as if we were to take a landscape painting as the countryside itself. IT IS AS IF WE WERE JUST REPEATING THE SAME WORDS OVER & OVER AGAIN without really listening to them & through them to what they were actually saying & what responses were being made to them.” [Emphasis mine]
p. 35: “Communal woolgatherings are no less egocentric than our private nurslings….We can…settle into a set form of praying, a chain of fixed phrases & sequences that becomes so mechanical we fall into what Thomas Merton calls a “smug unconscious complacency” where no truth can break us free.”
We should need an explicit, written requirement that our liturgy be intelligible? Or changes to it be intelligible? Excuse me?
“. . . there’s nothing that says that these changes must be intelligible. For more information go to the website of ICEL and read the article ‘ Music for the English Language Roman Missal:An Introduction, which for NPM members, it can be found in the June 2009 edition of Pastoral Music.”
Lynn Thomas stated:
We should need an explicit, written requirement that our liturgy be intelligible? Or changes to it be intelligible? Excuse me?
Exactly, and I point everyone here to the website Catholic Culture In the blog On theCulture, Vatican II on the Liturgy: Related Concerns by Jeff Mirus at:
That link no longer works. This is the correct one: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=595&repos=6&subrepos=2&searchid=623961
While I am dedicated and committed to do everything I can as a composer, workshop leader, and liturgist to help the new translation be implemented as positively as possible, I think we are headed for at least, 5 years of chaos and anger from many of the faithful, and from our colleagues as well. In just a few workshop settings and retreat settings where these topics have come up, the overwhelming mood is at best, disappointment, and at worst, disgust. We are heading for a time that is going to be very difficult.. not just adjusting to new words, but for the horrific process (which was for the most part, not a process, but a monolithic “order” from on high) that brought it to us. I do see places where the new translation is actually quite beautiful at times, but there are other aspects and instances that are going to raise ire among many (as they have already). I will not encourage or try to drum up the discontent, as that will not serve our people well – but we better be ready – and perhaps I will be proven wrong (I hope so, but I doubt it) for a firestorm. And from my observations so far, many in leadership (bishops and professional liturgists) seem to be clueless to what is brewing. Not trying to be overly negative.. but to be honest, I think I am being realistic.
One case in point here… is the workshops that have begun to take place around the country for priests and “diocesan leaders” (that does not seem to be clearly defined), sponsored by FDLC and the Bishops… why is it for priests only? Already, out of the box, the formational and catechetical effort is once again, separating the clergy and the laity from the same information, the same formation, and the same process for implementation. I do not hear about any plan for similar such workshops for lay leaders… but even if they do come, why are we again, separating ourselves. Why cannot we learn and be taught about this together? In speaking to a couple of priests who attended one of these recently, for the most part they found the day helpful (while critical of some things) and informative, they too wondered why the exclusivity? I asked them directly, “do you think that having more lay people present would change the ‘dynamic’ of the day or the discussions?” They immediately, said, “no, it would not have.” While I am certain the intention was and is not to exclude lay leaders (liturgists, music directors, etc), nor do I believe that their stance is that “we” are not intelligent enough to hear the same information, – I think the message is not positive at all. Especially, since I know, that many priests have already said to some of the professional or volunteer liturgists and music directors, that they are going to pass off the responsibility of forming the…
Regarding the “separation” of clergy and laity when it comes to instruction on the new translation, perhaps the following quote from Sacro. Conc. comes into play?
“[P]astors of souls must zealously strive to achieve [this participation among the faithful], by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work. Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy.” (CSL 14)
Instruct the clergy first, so that they can instruct the souls committed to their care. That way, formation of the laity within a diocese can be carried out by the diocesan bishop and his presbyterate who will have been formed by the FDLC and BCDW.
And maybe the addition of laypeople, indiscriminately, to the priest workshops, would make the event unmanageable. I mean this in terms of numbers of people present.
I don’t see any conspiratorial or devious motive here. It seems logical to me.
people in our parishes to these very people who have not been allowed to attend these gatherings. I don’t know… I just don’t understand it. This is going to be such a tough go for people, and I think that ALL of us: clergy, and liturgists, and musicians, and others entrusted with the implementation and positive formation of the missal, should be sitting in the room at the same time, at the same tables, having discussions to offer help, support, ideas, and strategies…. am I crazy?
David,
What you have stated above is why parishes need to have an adult faith formation programs that could sponsor workshop programs on things like the new order of the Mass.
David,
As an NPM member and a long time music minister, I admire your hymns,Mass of Light setting and your writings. I believe that it would not be such a long haul for the people in the pews if churches didn’t read liturgy lessons to help prepare the congregation for the coming changes. In the current parish I am in, when the GIRM 2002 came about and our bishop issued changes in the Communion Rite, there were liturgy lessons to help prepare us. In addition, our liturgy director held an hour and a half training session o the GIRM and the newly revised communion rite. Also, parishes, if you have adult faith formation programs, part of that should be used to catechize the people on the changes, and why they are happening. Just don’t tell the people, as a way of catechizing them,”Well, starting today, we are now doing this.” That’s the problem that happened when the 1970 changes were implemented, and as a result, many faithful Catholics of Pre-Vatican II were alienated.
I am just an ordinary volunteer lay music director, intensely interested in liturgy. I have read the new texts and happened to come across this forum when I googled “new translation” with various composers that we currently use.
I’m concerned that I cant find published settings of the new texts. Where are they? As we are directed by GIRM that sung responses are the most unifying for the assembly, I would think that provision of such would be a fairly urgent matter. I know they are coming, but when? Can anyone shed light on this?
ICEL has released the Missal chant settings on their site. http://icelweb.org/musicfolder/openmusic.php
If you go to the CMAA website you can request to have sent to you several settings of the Ordinary. http://musicasacra.com/
GIA also has a section where you can see a few small pieces of some of their settings. There seems to be a lot of material out there that is not from the “Big 3 publishers” that is very good, readily available, and FREE.
In response to Jeffrey, I never said that the exclusion of more lay people at these workshops were “conspiritorial” or “devious.” In fact, I said intentionally in my post, that I did not believe bad intentions. I know Fr. Hilgartner and the folks at FDLC fairly well, and I believe that their intentions are pastoral and desiring to be helpful. I just do not agree with the strategy, and find it especially troubling during this time of widening distrust of clergy by the laity.. this did not send a good sign. The quote from SC, while certainly fine in its vision, is a naive response in my opinion… the reality just does not exist. Many clergy have already decided NOT to be engaged with the “necessary instruction” that SC refers to to. I have already heard dozens of parish musicians and liturgists tell me, they expect THEM (meaning the musicians and liturgists) to get educated and lead the effort. There are even a handful of pastors who have said to me something along these lines: “there is no way I am going to stand up in front of the congregation and do this… I value my life.” Now, while this is appalling, it is also a reality. Many priests will take good care to offer good and pastoral and “necessary instruction” and do so well. But there are perhaps just as many, who have already decided to hide from this responsibility, or also, just feel that they might be the right person to lead the necessary catechesis. It is also naive to presume that every diocese…
every diocese will actually “follow up” on these formational gatherings for what is primarily, the clergy. Again, I know of places where NO DIOCESAN LITURGY OFFICE even exists any more. I also know, from invitations that I and others are getting to come and present workshops on the musical and other aspects of missal, that they are doing so, because NOTHING is happening in their diocese, and that nothing is being planned as well.
Even if all of these situations were different… these changes and the lightning rods that they will ignite (both positive and negative) I believe require the best that ALL of us can give: priests, theologians, liturgists, composers, pastoral musicians, and other liturgical ministers and leaders. What are we afraid of in sitting down together wrestling with these very important matters? We are talking about the pastoral care of the prayer of our people. In response to TIm, I am not talking about people reading “liturgy lessons.” I am talking about formational events that truly engage people in the process. Regardless of what process is chosen, there are going to be people who will be alienated… we have to prepare ourselves for that. But a good and careful strategy will help people embrace these changes positively. Paul Turner’s WONDERFUL new little book from LTP and other materials that I know they, Lit. Press and others will be doing, will be of great help.
I just want to say that I like David’s spirit – a model for those who are skeptical of the new translation. He is not stirring up opposition or attacking the authorities. He is respectful in stating his own critique, and he is helpfully honest about the strong opposition which will be out there, and how best to deal with it.
I also agree that Paul Turner’s book is wonderful! I regret that LTP and others might have to reprint all their resources already published, because someone has changed a few words here and there in the Order of Mass.
awr
So many of the things that we knock back and forth here on this blog and in other forums are WONDERFUL… but we need to prepare ourselves for the basic reality, that for many people, much of what we talk about does not matter at all to them. Many will be (and already are) will be asking, pure and simple: “why are you doing this?” We will try to be very sage and say: “because we want to be true to the Latin and our present translation is inadequate.” And many of them will respond: “So? I like our words, they work for me. These new words sound stuffy.” And many more exchanges like this will take place… are we truly ready for this? Are we only going to say staged phrases that don’t matter to them? Are we going to quote LA, SC, and other documents to them? I deeply believe that this moment does provide us with some positive opportunities, and please, I am not trying to sabotage the revised changes. But I have to admit, I am worried that we are not prepared to meet adequately the challenges that will be coming are way. I know I am not prepared.. and I want to be. I would have liked to have been able to attend the FDLC regional workshop here… I am one who is doing a lot of study about this, but I still need help. What about those other lay folks who are not able to do the same “self-study” and yet are being given the responsibility to “pull this off,” so to speak? Enough.. sorry for all of the babbling, I am venting, hoping I am not alone in this.
To David,
I’m not just talking about liturgy lessons. In my parish, we have a faith formation program called “Generations of Faith” where there is a presentation for all ages, and sometimes a separate one for children, teens and adults. Since I serve in my parish’s adult faith formation area, I can make a suggestion that there be an interactive series of presentations on the new Mass setting so people can be involved in learning the new Mass settings so it wouldn’t be passive. I can also see if our music ministry coordinator once music for new mass settings have been published in accordance with this new Mass can have either an entire session or part of the Generations of Faith program. Also, I think it would be a good idea for parishes to sell copies of the Roman Missal to parishioners who want to purchase them for use at Mass once the new Mass is implemented at the parish level.
I was accused on a diocesan level for being divisive when two years ago I put into our people’s hands through our mailed out newsletter the translation that thus far had been released through the Bishops’ national website. I should have waited until the diocese began its program. To date, it is no where in sight. Six months ago I phased out the English “the Lord be with You” and “also with you” as well as the preface dialogue and the pre-Communion “peace be with you” for the Latin responses which now even our elementary school children at our weekly Mass belt out better than their parents. I assured the parish that as soon as we had permission to go to the new (old) English responses we would. I’ve practiced illicitly the priest’s parts of Mass including the Eucharistic prayers asking for feedback and telling them that the new English is lofty, a bit wordy and sometimes with run on sentences that not only will the congregation need to get used to but also the priest. No one went ballistic over my premature experimentation, except maybe those in higher positions than mine. Why are pastors afraid of their congregations? How have pastors catechized their congregations and led them to a mature response to mandated change? Or have they not done so in years? I got some flack for the Latin, still do to a lesser extent, but people are very charitable and cooperative when things are explained and you allow them to speak to you and the priest to them.
Allan, I think one problem is that no one can be sure, until the recognitiones for each individual country come back from Rome with their accompanying texts (which, it is anticipated will contain some of the modifications that episcopal conferences requested), that the text we have now is necessary the last word. There could be differences. We just don’t know. That is why people at national as well as diocesan level have been telling people to hold off, so that the people are not antagonised with premature catechesis on one version when what finally comes down the pike is different, even if only slightly different.
I’m afraid we haven’t held off and will be singing the new translation acclamations from September – am currently in a period of consultation with our cantors and the People’s Singing Group, asking them which, of the three I’ve offered, they’d prefer to start with.
We’re desperate for a new Holy – we only have seven and have sung some of those for six years. It seems pointless to sing a new setting of the present text when it will soon be obsolete.
The existing Glorias will have to remain for a while – I simply can’t my head around the rhythms and my initial attempts have been far from usable.
Tim… forgive my jumping to conclusions.. the Generations of Faith approach that you are doing is obviously a good strategy (I am very familiar with the program).
I also appreciate what Anthony observed in what I was trying to say… while I am critical of much of the process, and some of the translation results, and the formational approach that these primarily “clergy” only formational events are taking…. I am, as I know many of us are who are not totally happy with what has transpired, committed to “choosing life” as we carefully and pastorally lead our liturgical and musical leaders, and our worshipping communities through this process. In the midst of all my angst – I do really believe that we have an opportunity to do some real positive catechesis.. but we have to do so with full appreciation of the fact, that many people are going to be angry (as well as those who will be happy) about all of this… and we have to walk with them, allow them to grieve, and honor their angst. What I have already been saying in workshops surrounding this topic, that regardless of whether or not we “like” the new words or our unhappy with some of this – in the meantime, God is still worthy of our praise. Our call to worship in spirit and truth does not go away. We as leaders have to deal with our own angst around all of this, to be sure that when Advent 2011 comes around (or whenever full compliance is to be mandated), we are not still swimming in our own negativity. I want to choose life.. but I need to do so with the awareness of the challenges that await us. And I am disaappointed that clergy and laity alike are not coming together…
… as we plot a pastoral strategy and share the knowledge and background that can help us understand the background of these texts and revisions, so we can present it to our worshipping communities. I was part of the January Composer’s Forum hosted by John Foley in St. Louis, and Paul Turner did a marvelous two-part presentation for us – theological and pastoral, filled with scholarship but also realistic and helpful in this regard. This was a treasure that I hope for gatherings of priests and lay leaders alike. Paul is doing these types of events, and Mike Joncas is as well… and many others. This is good news – lets hope and pray the diocesan offices and bishops and others will encourage more gatherings like this that are offered for EVERYONE…
The catechetical materials I’ve been putting together — one of them is aimed primarily at the laity, although it’s useful to the clergy as well. The other is aimed at both laity and clergy, with separate reflection questions for each. That is not meant to segregate the two, but simply to address each group at their proper level, not to laicize the clergy or clericize the laity.
But both books are suitable for any audience.
All,
Here is a question and answer page my diocese, the Cleveland Catholic Diocese has begun on the new Roman Missal Translation:
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.