“This text won’t last long”

Someone closely involved in the translation process writes the following to me. (The author is not from ICEL. I’m not telling what country or national conference he’s from.)

My private view is that this text won’t last long. I think it will need to be revisited sooner rather than later. By that stage I will have completed my term and it will be someone else’s problem!

This got me thinking. Not about my view of the final text – I already think it’s not too good. It’s too stilted and unnatural, i.e., not very beautiful. The revisers didn’t consult musicians, so it’s unsingable in some places. In too many places it’s oddly inaccurate of the Latin meaning. There are some improvements, to be sure, in the final revision, but even more problems.

The author – who, by the way, was once a strong supporter of the whole retranslation project – got me thinking, rather, about how long this text will last. Five years? Ten? Twenty? Or will there be a consensus already within two or three years that it’s time to set up the revision committee? Or sooner, because people rise up in protest as in South Africa? Or as in the German-speaking countries, where the newly-translated funeral rites book had to be withdrawn within just a few months of its introduction?

If only we could know how long the new Missal will last, we might know the best thing to do right now. If the new Missal is doomed to be withdrawn within, say, a year, the best service to perform for the Church right now would be to work mightily to prevent its introduction. It would be a great kindness to our Bishops to spare them of such a pastoral disaster. If, on the other hand, the Missal is destined to last several years, but opinion turns fairly quickly to how to revise it, it would be a service to the Church to start that conversation already now. The richer the discussion, the better. The more probing and perceptive the critique of the new text, the better. The more accurate the diagnosis of what went wrong, the better.

I’m presuming that the new Missal will be implemented in the U.S. on the First Sunday of Advent, 2011. I will be working mightily, in my monastic community and in the many diocese and parishes to which I’ve been invited, for the best possible implementation. I will do my best to help priests sing the new texts well. I will do my best to help people see everything good in the new translation and to pray it from the heart. I’m here to serve the Church.

But there are many ways to serve the Church. It’s easy to accuse the Missal’s critics of disobedience. Those who critique the new text, and even those who work to prevent its implementation, are also serving the Church. Theirs might be the highest service of all.

If only we knew how long the the new Missal will last. If only we knew the mind of the Lord. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 2:16, Romans 11:34, Isaiah 40:13)

awr

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, is a monk of St. John's Abbey. He teaches liturgy, liturgical music, and Gregorian chant at St. John's University School of Theology-Seminary. He is widely published and frequently presents across the country on liturgy and music. He is the author of Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations, and of Responsorial Psalms for Weekday Mass: Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter. He does priestly ministry at the neighboring community of Benedictine sisters in St. Joseph.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

58 responses to ““This text won’t last long””

  1. Rev. Bryan P. Babick, SL.L.

    I sure wish I had your contacts, Father Ruff! I could probably guess the source, however. I share your sentiments on serving the Church faithfully in implementing these new translations. We should all do our best in obedience and fidelity to Holy Mother Church, even if the new texts aren’t perfect. I hope we don’t have to revise them as thoroughly as we are about to anytime soon. I won’t have the energy for such a massive reimplementation again!

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Well, there are only 11 national conferences in ICEL, and only 15 other conferences who also use English in the liturgy and are associate participants. That narrows the field for your guess.
      awr

      Reply
  2. Jeffrey Pinyan

    +JMJ+

    It’s depressing to me to think that a person “closely involved in the translation process” doesn’t think the text he’s partially responsible for is going to stand the test of any time whatsoever. Why not take another year to revise it, instead of submitting it in hopes of getting it used as soon as possible?

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      But many of the problems set in after the text was submitted – which is when the Holy See let a few people revise and undo the work of many, many people over the previous 8 years.
      awr

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        +JMJ+

        I had no idea where this person was in the translation chain.

  3. Alan Hommerding

    As a “conciliar cusp” baby, I have a very clear auditory memory of the pastor of my boyhood parish prognosticating that the English/vernacular Mass was either a “fad” or a “phase” and so the altar boys still needed to learn their Latin prayers. Depending on timeframe and what kind of scale you’re applying to the passage of time, he may still be proved right, I don’t know. But I still think he was referring to within the shelf life of my service at the altar (about 5 yrs). I’ve come to believe that his prediction was more a reflection of his personal taste and opinion than anything else.
    Probably just further proof that there’s a difference between being a prophet and a prognosticator.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Yes, I think it’s very possible that this text lasts a good while. As J. Peter Nixon put it, we’ve done good things with one crappy text, so now we can do good things with another crappy text.
      awr

      Reply
      1. Luke Whittaker

        Are we referring the the text of the Roman Missal here? In my own opinion it is egregious to refer to such text as “crappy”. It also serves to further erode public opinion. So, Father Ruff, when you said in the initial post that you weren’t certain whether to oppose or support the new translation, you truly meant that you have in fact decided to condemn it.

      2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        LW – why egregious? Because it is an inaccurate assessment? Or because being Christian means you shouldn’t state things accurately? I’m quoting someone else, but I have no problem in agreeing that some things about the new text are crappy. Why not? Because it’s the truth. I don’t claim to have a lot of influence such that I can erode public confidence. There are a zillion opinions about the new translation just a click away on the internet. I trust that adults can read all of it and make up their own minds.
        awr

  4. Karl Liam Saur

    I suspect revisions in a subsequent translation would focus almost entirely on the celebrant’s parts, not the people’s parts, so its impact on music being sung by the faithful and the choir will be somewhat limited. The Ordinary has about only two issues that might face popular revision – the “and on earth peace” in the opening line of the Gloria (which I think will survive since it was used in the original English vernacular liturgy from 1965-1970) and “consubstantial” in the Creed (which might be revisited not so much with “one in being” but with “of one substance” that was used in the 1965-70 translation and is also used in some other English-speaking churches – happily for syllable/stress counters, each scans roughly the same for musical purposes….). Otherwise, I suspect the text of the people’s musical Ordinary is set for at least this generation.

    Reply
    1. F C Bauerschmidt

      Liam,

      I think you’re right. Though I dream of a Roman Canon that reads like English, I don’t see the text for the order of Mass changing a whole lot — and certainly not the congregational parts — but I imagine we could see fairly extensive changes to the orations in ten years (about the physical lifespan of a liturgical book).

      Reply
  5. C H Edwards

    Well, far from perfect though it might be, the new translation is a big improvement over the 1973 translation, which has lasted 37 years and counting. Any clue here? How about another biblical forty?

    Reply
    1. Jack Wayne

      I was wondering, what was the 1970-73 translation like?

      There’s some videos of the new Eucharistic prayers (along with the Sursum Corda and Sanctus) on Youtube. I assume it’s from a test Mass. Listening to it, it sounded fine to me – more elegant than the current translation. I was never lost or confused by it. Granted, the text was tweaked since then, but it wasn’t the horror that some people here keep going on about. It struck me as immeasurably better than the current text despite any faults it may have.

      But I’m of the opinion that the currently-used text is about as bad as you can get. It’s good only in that it is familiar to people right now.

      Reply
  6. Luke Whittaker

    The greatest kindness that we can do for our Bishops regarding the new translation is to support it. Lest we neglect the words of our Lord to the Apostles, “he who hears you (Church), hears me.” It seems unfortunate that a person “closely involved” in the translation project would make the remarks that he did. Such remarks appear subversive and of little help to the project he has been assigned to.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      It sounds like you’re hoping to shout down a discussion of many various opinions. Trust me – it won’t work on this blog.
      awr

      Reply
  7. Jan Larson

    Yes, one feels sorry for those poor bishops, who did little as a group to ward off this poor translation. Now we begin to see some of the wisdom of the “What if we just said wait” initiative. Why not try the new translation in a seriously managed way for a year, get substantive representative feedback from presiders, musicians and faithful, and then talk about implementation? Some twenty-one thousand folks think this would be a good idea. And by the way, is clear to me that future attempts at translation will be significantly influenced by the increasing power of the internet.

    Reply
  8. John Finn

    If the internet were available, I can’t help but wonder how many people would have signed a “What if we just said wait” petition organized by an Archbishop in the late 1960s?

    Reply
  9. Bill deHaas

    Not that many, JF. It is sad that you continue your constant mantra based on “nothing”.

    Reply
  10. John Finn

    “It’s easy to accuse the Missal’s critics of disobedience. Those who critique the new text, and even those who work to prevent its implementation, are also serving the Church. Theirs might be the highest service of all.”

    Does this apply to men like ++Lefebvre?

    I am happy with the post V2 liturgy, especially in its new (and in my mind) vastly improved translation. I just can’t help but notice the irony in the comment quoted above.

    Reply
  11. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    I agree with Bill. JF, do you really wonder? Do you wonder enough that you would ever consult any of the available data telling us how Catholics accepted the 1960s reforms? That data has been pointed out to you several times now on this blog. But you’ve managed pretty well to ignore that, haven’t you?
    awr

    Reply
    1. Michael Podrebarac

      What is the intended value of this blog keeping as commenters people who really don’t contribute anything of substance to the discussion, but rather repeat the same thing again and again and again, even when their points have been more-than-answered again and again and again? I’m all for REAL discussion, but some of this is getting ridiculous.

      Reply
      1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Michael – OK, I hear you. We need to be more proactive in putting some people in the spam category. We’re on it.
        awr

  12. Jack Wayne

    I’m curious about the data regarding the Vatican II reform – just because I find such things interesting.

    I do think a petition like the one John Finn wonders about would have garnered as many, if not more, signatures than the “What if we just wait?” petition. There are way more than 21,000 people who like the old Latin Mass in the church today – I imagine there would have been more such people in the 60’s.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      I hear you saying that you don’t know about the data. And that, in the absence of this knowledge, you’re content to make things up.
      awr

      Reply
      1. Jack Wayne

        Well, you could let me see the data.

        And what, pray tell, did I make up?

      2. Guy Crouchback

        I’d be interested in seeing this data as well. My liturgical knowledge is very amateurish, but I consider myself better informed than most and I don’t ever recall hearing about such polling data.

        My first instinct would be to agree with Jack Wayne and John Finn on how a “What is we just said wait?” petition would fair regarding the post-conciliar reforms. People hate change; often times irregardless if it’s for the better or for the worse. To the extent that’s true, I’m inclined to strongly discount people’s initial reactions to something that is new.

        Also, with all due respect, Fr. Ruff, I’m also a little confused about your response to Jack Wayne. I’m all for Pray Tell’s commitment to fostering dialogue, but sometimes (at least in the comments section) it seems content at simply playing the foil to the New Liturgical Movement or Fr. Z. Which is fine as far as it goes; there is certainly a need for a “liberal” liturgical voice. It’s just not quite what Pray Tell advertises itself as.

      3. Brad Wilson

        I’m interested in seeing the data as well. It’s been stated over and over on this blog that the “data” strongly suggests certain things in the late 1960s. I haven’t seen the data either and it has never been correctly cited on this blog to my knowledge. Do you have a link to this data so that readers of this blog can personally discern what the data says?

      4. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Here’s a small start. William D. Dinges, “Ritual Conflict as Social Conflict: Liturgical Reform in the Roman Catholic Church, ” Sociological Analysis 1987 (48), 2:138-157. His first footnotes says:

        “There is no empirical evidence that liturgical changes are responsible for the decline in Mass attendance since Vatican II. McCready’s study for the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions (1974) showed clearly that the decline in Catholic devotional behavior could be attributed to disillusionment with Church authority in the wake of Humane Vitae. Gallup and NORC surveys also indicate that less than 10 % of American Catholics don’t go to mass more often because they “dislike liturgical changes” (1974: 9). Alienation from the liturgy is mainly related to deep negative feelings about the Church and its teachings and authority structure, not change, per se (See, also, Saldahna, et. al., 1875, on this issue).”

        I would like more data of this sort. Please, everyone: send in good references.

        awr

      5. Father Allan J. McDonald

        Fr. Anthony, you hit the nail on the head generally speaking with this data. The data about authority and the cultural revolution against it both in civil law and Church law created the chasm that you write to a great extent. It was exacerbated by the “theology of dissent” that attempted I think to keep dissenting Catholics within the fold at all costs, even to the point of sacrificing truth and good order. Where I would disagree through personal experience is how banal the Mass became in parochial settings and how difficult it was to sit through Masses, especially music of the 1970’s and weird homilies that focused on what Vatican II supposedly taught, rather than on the Person of Jesus Christ. There were many questioning the need for a law or obligation to attend Mass and that many “felt” you could worship God anywhere, it didn’t have to be at Mass. The Mass was one amongst many ways to experience God and all things are equal. The cultural shifts in society and Catholics who are as much a part of the secular culture in which they live and sometimes formed more by it than the teaching of the Church have to be taken into account in this period of time.

      6. Jack Rakosky

        The big values change in advanced economies (and therefore among churchgoers too) since the sixties has been the shift to postindustrial values characterized by choice, emphasizing self expression and the authority of personal experience

        The good news for the USA is that we did not abandon our values of God, family, life and nation as happened in Europe. What we fight about is how to express our values of God, family, life and nation. That is healthy because those values keep us together as a nation. When we cease to fight about how to express them then we will have gone the way of Europe.

        With regard to Christianity in the USA, the postindustrial economy means the key question is not what denomination you are but how you chose to be a saint. We Catholics have an advantage because we have a very large and diverse lot of saints and religious orders to flood into the spiritual market place.

        With regard to liturgy, especially music, diversity is also the key to the future of denominations. So it is not just the OF and EF, but all the great diverse heritage of music for the liturgy present in Catholicism and in all the various Catholic nationalities. We need to mine all that and serve it up, not everything in every parish, but give people a lot of choice. We also have the largest presence of Eastern Churches outside their native lands.

        Nitpicking about language and music stands in the way of the growth of Catholicism.

  13. Alan Griffiths

    If it turns out to be the case that further revision of the new text is necessary, then those with skills in writing English prose, and with talents in creating ‘chantable’ text, need to be working on it now, and keeping records of their work.

    The one thing which may be argued in favour of the new version is that it (mostly) sticks closely to the Latin. That being so, it ought to be possible to work on it carefully to edge it towards speakable English without losing the meaning.

    ‘Pray Tell’ might do a service to everyone by featuring some revised texts from suitable revisers. If we must have the same English text for all English speakers worldwide, then some sort of common ‘level’ of speech must be found. We can’t have one group accusing the text of archaisms and another group saying it is beautiful and reverent.

    AG

    Reply
  14. Jack Regan

    A priest one said to me that “when Protestants don’t like something, they break away and start a new Church, but when Catholics don’t like something [that their Church says] they just ignore it!”

    I think there will be a huge, massive amount of parish priests who just say NO, and a huge amount of Bishops who don’t do that much to force the issue.

    And yes, I think we’ll be revising it in a few years.

    Reply
  15. Father Allan J. McDonald

    I think that there is plenty of historical data suggesting that the changes in the Church beginning around 1965 created a great deal of division and chaos in the Church. The initial change in the Liturgy was well accepted and generated enthusiasm and excitement. But the original changes were minor, except for the fact that the Mass was facing the people, the Tridentine Mass was translated quite accurately in to somewhat good English with minor revisions of the rubrics and allowance of lay lectors. But once these changes were made, it was as though a great multitude in both the laity and clergy felt that Vatican II opened Pandora’s Box on everything and everything was opened to question, revision, experimentation and dissent. The theology of dissent became a new way to be Catholic. Of course this theology of dissent lurched forward in 1968 with Humanae Vitae and the cultural revolution against authority, law, civil or canon, and moral relativity. Experimentation reigned supreme and was encouraged by the bishops and the Vatican. Shortly after his election in 1978, Pope John Paul II called for the end of “experimentation” in the Church and the restoration of the great “discipline” of the Church. That process has been somewhat successful but will take many more years. Factionalism generated by ongoing dissent, such as those voiced against a now approved translation of the English Mass, is but a remnant of nostalgia for the good old days of the 1970’s when dissent and factionalism were thought to be synonyms for “renewal.”

    Reply
    1. Jack Wayne

      While I didn’t live through the changes, you seem to describe what I’ve gathered from the people who did. Whenever older people talk about what was good about Vatican II, it almost always boils down to vernacular, Mass facing the people, and allowing laymen to do things like lector. It tells me that the liturgical renewal could have largely stopped there and we’d be fine. I think when people talk about how happy the laity was with the liturgical renewal, they are largely talking about how happy the laity was with those particular points rather than how happy they are with the 1970’s ICEL translation, the “Memorial Acclimation,” a single “Domine non sum…,” or four penitential rites.

      I think if the changes were “bad,” they were mostly bad in that they came at a time in history when they were most likely to set up a false hope that Church teachings would change (the cultural revolution of the 60’s/70’s), a hope that was squashed when things like Humane Vitae came out. The impression I get from my parents is that people had been taught that the Mass was a huge unchangeable bulwark of Catholicism – a sign of unity and stability. If that could change, then *anything* could change.

      Reply
      1. Father Allan J. McDonald

        Jack, your last sentence is very true. Those of us who lived pre and post Vatican II know that the pre-Vatican II Church was extremely structured, rigid and disciplined. Things, even in culture, were black and white and there was a clear sense of heaven, hell, purgatory and yes, limbo. Priests and religious were our teachers and many of them very strict and austere. So after Vatican II when things loosened up and everyone was trying to prove Jesus’ loving Human nature so too were priests and religious trying to do the same with their own humanity, more approachable, etc. The Church was becoming more pastoral, flexible, understanding and promoting a loving community, worshiping a loving God who wouldn’t exclude anyone, thus hell fell out of favor with many Catholics as well as censure and excommunication. And by all means whatever it took to keep the young in the Church, the angry happy, the dissident placated, then the Church had a pastoral ability to do such. Getting back to topic, in the pre-Vatican II Church it was frowned upon to believe in or rely upon soothsayers and the like to predict the future. We really don’t know if the new translation will take root, be changed in five years or five hundred years. Most of us reading this comment will be dead or near retirement I suspect if a new translation is implemented after the new one that we are in fact getting. But again, I’m not a fortune teller!

  16. C H Edwards

    Fr. McDonald,

    I was actually there in the 1960’s, and fairly closely associated with some who were active in the liturgical experimentation you describe. The various cross-currents in that era were complex, and you’ve probably given the best and most accurate one-paragraph summary I’ve seen.

    As for the present, my sense is that our bishops have no appetite for any more “liturgy wars” on the translation front. To the extent, that whether the new translation turns out to be good, bad, or indifferent in practice, it will be with us for a generation or two, while attention turns to other aspects of the reform of the reform.

    Reply
  17. Bill deHaas

    Edwards and MacDonald – sorry, Father you have accurately summarized the studies and data of the period from 1965-1973. After that, you have generalized negativity and re-written history (your revisionism is based on what? your opinion only). Actual studies such as Baldovin, SJ’s book on liturgy and others accurately describe what most catholics experienced. You too quickly ignore the immense changes liturgically that happened from 1965-1975, you skip over the immense musical/liturgical development up until the late 1980’s. You ignore that whole history of ICEL that would have shaped and improved the liturgy if allowed in 1998. Your comments about dissent, etc. have little foundation in reality esp. with the liturgy. Both of you have a tendency to cite a personal experience and globalize that? Do you have any experience outside your small parish/dioceses; outside the english speaking world (do you know that liturgically things were/are very different between Canada, US, England, Australia, South Africa); how about the significant liturgical difference between language groups? You are entitled to your opinion; just not the facts. I lived through the changes; I was passionate about educating and training. The issues with individual priests/bishops who poorly implement and do liturgy will not change with this translation – that is what I mean when I say the issue is the this cure is worse than the illness. The illness is formation, liturgy training, presders, etc.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      Agreed there is much revisionism with Fr McDonald’s viewpoint. Rollback on liturgical experimentation was already gaining momentum with the 1970 document Liturgicae Instaurationes. By the time John Paul II supposedly put the kabosh on the funny stuff, serious liturgists were addressing serious matters, like the council’s call to adapt to modern times: Protestants becoming Catholics, cremation, Masses with children, and the successful rites for pastoral care–most all done with wide consultation with real liturgists in the trenches.

      I agree with the statement that we’ve done great things with a crappy Mass translation for the past forty years. We can accomplish the same with a second crappy translation. The people who care about liturgy will benefit, and the people who don’t won’t. MR3 deserves a short shelf life but my crystal ball is too cloudy to tell me we’ll get a German-style rollback or not. Either way, I don’t look to see episcopal credibility enhanced by this.

      Reply
  18. Jeffrey Herbert

    Getting back to the actual topic, I’d say that the translation will probably last for about 20-30 years after it’s widespread implementation, which will probably be a period of 5-10 years from now. So maybe 40 years or so… that seems like a good number for how long a translation can exist before the next generation thinks it knows better than the former.

    Of course, there’s limited data to point to as an example… we only have one translation to use as an example, at least in English.

    Reply
  19. C H Edwards

    Mr. deHaas, I am puzzled that your post @10:10 am is addressed in part to me, although my post (in its first paragraph) did not touch upon the period and issues you mention. And my second paragraph merely pointed out that the English translation issue is–from the viewpoint of Church hierarchy–now over and settled, so we can and will move on to other reform issues and opportunities.

    Although the use of an accurate translation is a necessary and wholesome step, I certainly agree with you that it will be no complete cure for the effects of generations of ill-formed priests and ill-catechized laity, some of whom may well have to move on through the pipeline before whatever may be the full benefits of a good translation of the missal are reaped.

    In the meantime, the seminaries I am familiar with are now doing a much better job of forming priests than was done in recently past decades and, whatever its defects may or may not be, the implementation of the new translation surely provides an occasion for much of the needed catechesis and formation if it is undertaken in a positive and spirit-filled manner.

    Reply
  20. Bill deHaas

    Not sure what seminaries you are referring to. Unfortunately, we still have many diocesan seminaries that reflect the current bishop’s style or lack thereof. Examples – when AB Burke was in St. Louis, he influenced new ordinands so that they spent most of their time on the EF and, by most reports, when they got to parish assignments, they created concern, negativity, less than positive feedback, etc.

    In Dallas, we see the same thing but many are 1st or 2nd generation Hispanics who have trouble with english – which dramatically impacts their comfort level and skill at liturgy.

    We have much more serious concerns than this re-translation project that completely misses the point.

    Reply
  21. C H Edwards

    Mr. deHaas, now I am puzzled as to why you might think this or any other “re-translation project” would or could be expected to solve the very real and pressing difficulties of 1st and 2nd generation Hispanics in the U.S. Clearly, a host of other programs and strategies are required to address such important special problems. The Church has so many problems that no single cure-all can be expected. But surely no renewed emphasis on Catholic identity and liturgy will hurt anyone.

    Reply
  22. Chris Owens

    I, too, think that the translation won’t last long. Something that hasn’t been mentioned, and I wonder what the thought about it is… is that English is a living language, and as much as you can hear Cardinal George talk about classical rhetoric being involved in the style of the languge employed in MR3, I still get the feeling that, simply because of the nature of the language, we’ll see a new missal translation every generation or two…

    Part two of this thought is, if indeed that is the case, is that acceptable? If the Church, and especially the liturgy, is meant to be a source of stability, a solid foundation in a world being taken over by the latest whim, and discarding it the next day, should we have that in the liturgy?

    Reply
    1. Jack Wayne

      I think the translation will get revised as the years go on, but I don’t think we’ll ever again go through anything as drastic as what we are about to undergo – at least in regards to the people’s parts.

      This time the change is dramatic because we’re going from a rather loose paraphrase to something that isn’t a paraphrase – I doubt we are going to head back in the direction of loose paraphrase ever again (we’ll probably have more of happy medium between literal translation and paraphrase when needed – which would still likely result in a translation that’s closer to the new Missal than to the old one), so most of the changes will probably be “minor” in the grand scheme of things. There isn’t anything particularly troublesome or difficult about the new translation’s people’s parts, so I doubt there will ever be a major reset of those anytime soon. After a few years, “and with your spirit” and the new Gloria and Credo will be second nature to most Catholics.

      Reply
  23. Steven J Schloeder, PhD

    “If only we could know how long the new Missal will last, we might know the best thing to do right now. If the new Missal is doomed to be withdrawn within, say, a year, the best service to perform for the Church right now would be to work mightily to prevent its introduction. ”

    Sounds like you are talking to your divorce lawyer and marriage counselor at the same time.

    Reply
  24. Shannon O'Donnell

    The most profound insight I gained from the change from Latin to English was realizing that all languages were holy. There wasn’t one special language the Holy One understood; every language was heard. And from there, memorized prayers were not the only way to pray. Even my own words could be used. That radicalized my relationship with God and the People of God. Nothing has been the same since.

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady

      NO languages are holy.

      The baptised are holy.

      Reply
    2. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      Shannon, I hope no one ever told/taught you that only Latin prayers were heard, or that only memorized/liturgical prayer was heard.

      The spiritual writers I’ve read especially promoted were little “darts” of prayer offered throughout the day. These weren’t memorized or liturgical prayers, they were simple, genuine expressions of praise or thanksgiving or contrition… offered in one’s own language, I’d imagine.

      Reply
  25. Lynne Gonzales

    Maybe by using the ploy of retranslating every couple of years the bishops can get by without paying royalties, as they’ve stuck it to the Catholic Biblical Society!

    Reply
  26. Jeff Rice

    Mr. deHaas, with due respect, I find your statement, “Both of you have a tendency to cite a personal experience and globalize that? Do you have any experience outside your small parish/dioceses;” rather demeaning, but worse, indicative of the attitudes of those who work on a large scale have for those working at the parish level. Unfortunately after decades of an approach of top-down leadership on liturgy, we still have a Church in crisis in terms of worship. I would invert the question… Do those who have been working on the “global” or large scale have a clue what goes on day to day in parishes? It seems to me, rather than insulting priests and lay persons who are working in the trenches with their congregations (and have a strong devotion to liturgy, beyond the norm, if they regularly visit PrayTell), it would be wiser for those working at the top to listen and get back in touch with reality. More to the point of the post, predicting the future, I find it odd how certain many commentators seem to be on the impending “disaster” of the implementation of the new translation, and the people’s surely negative response. I would ask for data to support these conclusions. My observational data (maybe not as broad a view as Mr. deHaas would like, but via contact throughout our somewhat large diocese, and colleagues around the country) is that the new translation will be received just fine if it is explained well. Perhaps I run in the wrong circles.

    Reply
    1. Father Allan J. McDonald

      Jeff, excellent points! Couldn’t have said it better myself. As I reflect on all of the whining about the translation, it is like Déjà vu all over again. In the late 1990’s when we got the new translation of the lectionary, many in “official” capacities in the area of liturgy were decrying how aweful it was and that we should not implement it. The thought then was that it would only last a couple of years. Well, here it is 2010, more than 12 years later and I don’t hear anyone complaining about it. I personally find some aspects of it poor. For example when reading some Gospel texts one’s not sure who is speaking to whom, so many pronouns are used. In my previous parish, we had the worship hymnal with the old lectionary readings at the back of it. So when we implemented the new lectionary, people would come to me and say they thought the older version was better, but no one was hysterical about it. In the six years I’ve been in my current assignment no one has ever complained to me about the lectionary readings and there seems to be no foment on praytell for a new one. Interesting! In terms of the new translation, what is on the Bishops’ website seems quite good to me and I see very little hysteria out there when it is implemented after some good, positive catechesis and yes, experimentation. I haven’t seen all of the priest’s parts, like prefaces and orations so I can’t comment on how these will be received. We have some horrible ones in the current translation. Have you looked at civic celebration prefaces and the one for Thanksgiving day? Have you heard the alternate opening collects we now have? How many people in the pew go nuts when they hear this drivel? No one has ever complained to me in over 30 years about it! I suspect the worst of the orations and prefaces in the new translation which I’ve not seen are much better than the worst of what we now have, which is plenty but prayed by most priests and the vast majority of laity without complaint.

      Reply
  27. Bill deHaas

    Fr. Anthony – have been checking my notes and looking for easy links to various studies on the VII liturgical changes and its impact.

    Here is another resource: Liturgical Reformers, Klockener & Kranemann, Vol. II, Part VI – for post-VII reform and its reception.

    Since some of the above bloggers make a point that all transitions/change are resisted by some – here is an interesting historical note by Baldovin, SJ in his recent book:

    “….opposition to SC began as soon as it was approved. Paul VI was unwilling to entrust the liturgical reform to the Cong. of Rites because it leadership was opposed to reform from the start. Thus, ,,,,,he created Consilium which reported directly to Paul VI until its work was completed in 1969 and merged into the Cong. of Divine Worship. But, there was no stability, that Cong. was then dismissed in 1975 along with Bugnini. From then on, one document after another drew back from the liturgical directions of VII spearheaded by the curia.”

    Per Baldovin, the final rupture happened in 1994 with Varietates Legitimae. He supports this via additional works including one published as early as 1967 with a foreword by Ottaviani’s colleague, Bacci. Both Ottaviani and Bacci wrote a joint letter to Paul VI in 1969 that was overtly and directly critical of the liturgical reforms.

    Unable to find the exact studies but the North American Academy of Liturgy has published a number of follow ups in Worship about reception and opposition.

    Reply
  28. Graham Wilson

    Chief translator Bruce Harbert thinks it could last 400 years!
    https://praytell.blog/index.php/2010/04/28/catholic-gambling/

    One has to be extremely careful of such predictions, which turn out to be hubristic. Given the poor quality of English in the translation, personally I can’t see it lasting very long at all.

    What we need is a translation of the Roman Rite that is beautiful and dignified, worthy of the liturgy, understanable and moving, one that allows the English language to soar in its service of woship.

    For that to happen properly the translation rules in Liturgiam Authenticam need to be thoughtfully revised and brought more into line with the original guidelines of the Consilium, which IMO are so full of eminent good sense.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CONSLEPR.HTM

    Reply
    1. Graham Wilson

      we need a translation that is beautiful and dignified, worthy of the liturgy, understandable and moving, one that allows the English language to soar in its service of woship

      Opps, how could I have left out proclaimable in word and in song?

      Reply
  29. Rev Bosco Peters

    I linked to this post.
    Why is the Lord’s Prayer the only part of the translation that doesn’t conform to to Liturgiam Authenticam??!!! Here is my gift to the Vatican: http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/my-our-father-gift-to-the-vatican/3926

    Reply
  30. Peter Haydon

    I am sorry to see commenters above being cross with each other: the aim is to convince others and you will not do it by being rude.
    My guess is that most Mass goers will go along with the new translation trusting their priest however he acts. Sadly those who protest and argue (either way) risk driving the faithful away.
    Those who read this blog presumably care about the subject. We must try to let our enthusiasm and interest encourage others to see that it is important. Let’s try to make the best of what we get. We might learn to like it.

    Reply
  31. Tim English

    A few weeks ago, I attended a parish liturgy planners meeting, and our outgoing liturgy director pointed out that the translation of the Roman Missal is a universal translation which means that all English speaking countries and territories will use the exact same translation. The Mass is universal and there should not be different translations for countries and territories that speak a different dialect of the same language(such as American English versus British/Queens English) or Spanish(South American Spanish versus the country of Spain’s national dialect, or Parisian French v.French Canadian French) Also, she pointed out that majority of the changes will come in the priest’s prayers and very few of the people’s responses will change. She said that it’s important to note that the basic structure of the Mass will NOT change, only the words.

    Reply
    1. Sean Whelan

      You have been keeping up on discussions here, haven’t you? If not, it may be wise to review why some feel these changes are problematic.

      Reply

Posted

in

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

Discover more from Home

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

Continue reading