Fr. Peter Williams from the Australian liturgy office is interviewed here about the translation process by Noel Debien of Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Fr. Williams has been involved with the “Leeds Group” in producing the recently-released educational DVD “Become One Body, One Spirit in Christ.”
Fr. Williams on the upcoming translation
Comments
24 responses to “Fr. Williams on the upcoming translation”
-
It’s like liturgical time stopped around 1980, and resumed again in 2000!
-
Fr. Peter Williams gives a very fine interview and certainly is a role model for priests in the manner in how he explains the new translation and what is the new liturgical movement. I wish I had his aplomb. I liked especially his preference for the word re-appropriation rather than restoration in terms of the hermeneutic of reform with continuity! This post was great!
-
I’m not sure if restoration is necessarily a bad term. To restore something is typically to renew it and give it new life – to once again make it useful and relevant by bringing out what made it appealing in the first place. Something can be restored while still being modern, like an old Victorian building that has been given new life via careful restoration and updating.
The Mass prior to Vatican II was a bit like the Victorian storefronts that lined most American downtowns in the 1950s. These were usually run down and seen as unsuited to modern needs. To make these parts of town more appealing to modern people the buildings were “modernized,” usually by having their ornament removed, or by being covered over in false-fronts in a contemporary (or colonial, it being ever popular due to its association with the Early Americans) style that would as much as possible hide what had been there before. A few decades later people realized that maybe the old downtowns had something truly unique to offer, so most recent revitalization efforts have focused on restoring the old buildings to their original glory – however this isn’t really a “turning back of the clock,” as the buildings are usually updated in a sensitive way to suit modern needs as well.
I see the Vatican II renewal as being somewhat like the drastic measures of the 1960’s to update urban areas, while the “Reform of the Reform” movement is more like modern (more sensitive) revitalization efforts
-
I did want to add that I really liked the interview as well. I think the “re-appropriation” angle is good too – my comment above was just to say that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with “restoration” per se.
-
-
I attended a presentation on the DVD given by Fr Williams in Cape Town a couple of months ago. I think the DVD will be of great benefit to many who want to deepen their appreciation of the Mass.
But, from what I saw, the DVD falls way short in inculturation and adaptation, being very white and very Western in its approach and targeting, largely ignoring the fact that most English-speakers live outside the West.
In the interview above, Fr Williams mentions the five theological foundational essays that lie at the base of the DVD. I found it extremely telling that there is no foundational essay for the section on the new translation itself. What does that mean? Unfortunately, no-one present at the meeting thought to ask him.
At the meeting the DVD was well received, but the justification for the new translation much less so by the audience of about 100 people, mostly middle-aged and elderly lay people and deacons, and 11 priests (out of 110 pastorally active). Fr Williams himself seemed quite ill at ease in explaining the translation and got quite a hard time from some of the attendees. The message I heard from him was I-don’t-agree-with-a-lot-in-the-new-translation;-I-agree-we-could-do-better,-but-there’s-nothing-we-can-do-about-it-now.
-
Fr Williams on “consultation” — he says not all are experts on Latin or theology — yet many of the signatories of Fr Ryan’s petition were precisely such experts. There is no evidence that their voices have been heard.
A Cardinal Primate assured me that all the bishops were asked was to make observations — not to approve or disapprove the texts as a whole — and that he had no confidence that the Vatican would pay any attention to the observations.
Only FIVE of the US Bishops came up with written observations on the last text, as was pointed out by Bp Trautman at their meeting. Obviously they had signed off on the process, disheartened.
“It’s been a case of trial and error” he says about the effort to translate in the style of Liturgiam Authenticam over the last 8 years. But the trial of actual use of the texts in public has not yet occurred, and the proof of the pudding lies there.
-
Joe O….
Be careful not to combine fact with opinion or conjecture.
We know as a fact that a great majority of Bishops signed off on the new translation. However, to add to that fact your opinion that they did so because they were “disheartened” is a bit of disingenuous editorializing. In your mind, is it not possible that they signed off on the draft version because they believed it to be good, maybe even excellent. I know that our Bishop is an outspoken advocate of the new translation and he is one of those who had signed off…. Certainly not because he was “disheartened”.-
Jeffrey,
Be careful not to be disingenuous. You know perfectly well that the US Bishops signed off on the new translation because Bishop Arthur Roche told them in no uncertain terms at that famous San Francisco meeting of the US Conference that if they did not eventually approve the text Rome would impose it on them anyway.
Of course there are some on the Conference who appear enthusiastic about the new translation because they are toeing the party line. But there are others who are very clear that the texts are problematic.
-
Jeffrey, my apologies. It was of course the famous Los Angeles meeting (don’t know why I wrote San Fran).
-
-
-
What people will notice most is that some of their responses have been altered, Fr W. says. There is a presumption that what the priest says is hardly noticed at all. I think this may be a serious underestimation of the ears of the faithful, which may turn out to be quite critical of the wretched English of the new translation.
Are the priest’s prayers convoluted, Fr W is asked. Reply: they are going to demand some work! Many prayers are quite beautiful but it’s a mixed bag; there’s a new richness, restored biblical resonances, etc. Sounds like a messy cake in which one can nonetheless pick out some juicy currants?
Response of the priests to Fr W’s DVD tour? He avoids the question, telling how he respects priests, then adds ” once they get over the shock,” their “resistance to change,” and “look at it historically and contextually” they’ll acccept it. In short HE HAD NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A POSITIVE WELCOME FOR THE TRANSLATION TO C!TE!
He goes on about “bizarre experimentation” although the usual criticism of the present translations is that they are prosaic and flat. It is the new translation that is a bizarre experiment.
Facing the “rollback of Vatican II” critique, Fr W says: “the ultimate end of inculturation is that taken to its extreme you just are left with the shape of the Roman Rite which apart from than is unrecognizable” — what a put-down of inculturated liturgy!
-
I am not a liturgist, theologian, or member of the clergy. But I do have bit of experience that may be somewhat relevant. I am a web designer.
In my field, there is a well-known phenomenon of users disliking, even passionately hating design changes, not because of any discernible problems with the updated design, but because it is different. Even when actual testing has shown improved usability, people will still band together to protest the change. (See any significant change to Facebook/Twitter.)
The point? When changes are made to a well-known system used by millions, the dominant tone initially will be complaint, regardless of whether the changes are good or bad. It will take a while for most people to be able to evaluate the situation objectively.
-
In other words “What if we just said wait?”!!!
-
No, Chris, he didn’t say “wait”. He said “It will take a while for most people to be able to evaluate the situation objectively.”
-
-
-
Reappropriation rather than restoration — yes, if it helps and forms people in terms of prayer — but rancid restorationism has the opposite effect, whether it be cappae magnae or bad, bad English versions of misunderstood Latin.
-
”Be careful not to be disingenuous.”
Good advice. And the most disingenuous recent Church phenomenon I’ve seen is anguished criticism of the language of the new English translation by folks who were not equally loud (or louder) in criticism of the banal and wretched translation that has been imposed on us for the past forty years. (One whose original implementation did not benefit from the wide-ranging review at numerous levels that the new translation has enjoyed.)
Of course, as one who’s lived by the pen, I as a committee of one naturally could improve upon the language in many passages of the new translation. But what I think especially disingenuous is the claim that the language itself is the real crux of these objections. At least, not on the part of those who realize the liturgy needs a sacral language that stands apart from the language of everyday use (whether in the first or the third world).
-
At least, not on the part of those who realize the liturgy needs a sacral language that stands apart from the language of everyday use (whether in the first or the third world).
Well, yes, if you get a group of like-minded people together, they will probably all endorse the same thing. But is that what catholic means, a group of like minded people?
Is the use of “vernacular” compatible with the use of a “sacral language”? Can they be one and the same? I think not. But I can recognize that others think they can be. But I would hate for either group to make all the decisions, as if the other opinion does not matter.
-
-
CHE – yes and no, I would say. There’s a reason to critique what’s coming, since it is a current and topical issue. For the record, lots of ‘progressives’ did critique the current translation, and mightily – see our Worship magazine from the era of timplementation. But whether people critiqued it enough or not, that’s really not the issue on the table, and there’s no reason to demand ‘parity of critique’ before people are allowed to critique what’s coming. People should be allowed to speak their mind freely on the coming translation.
awr -
Fr. Ruff: “People should be allowed to speak their mind freely on the coming translation.”
Of course. But the question in my mind regards the motivation for some of these comments. When I see criticisms of the new language by people who are obviously too literate to regard the old language as preferable, I wonder whether what really bothers them is something other than the linguistic or semantic quality of the new translation. And if so, why they don’t just say forthrightly what their real problem is.
-
OK. Maybe people should be clearer. I’ve tried to say (but maybe I haven’t said so forthrightly enough) that there is a problem with the product and also with the process. Maybe there will be further revisions to the final product, but if not, it will be shocking that Rome doesn’t follow Liturgiam authenticam and approves a translation so blatantly inaccurate in places, and even nonsensical in places. Regarding process, it bother me that 3-4 people can hijack like this without consulting with bishops’ conferences, and that clergy or people were never asked about any of it. I already know that ‘legally’ Rome has the authority to do this (they’ve given it to themselves, clearly). But is this how power and authority and consultation and mutual respect should work among Christ’s followers? I don’t think so, especially when He taught us that we shouldn’t be like the Gentiles in that regard.
I’m sure that some people are upset because this instance of exercise of authority reminds them of other areas where Rome’s exercise of authority is not good, and you probably sense that people are importing that into the translation issue. Maybe that’s unfair, but I’m not sure. Sometimes there is the “straw that broke…” and one issue bears the brunt. It seems to me that Rome brings much of this on themselves, and they could try to do business in a way which didn’t keep undercutting their own credibility.
awr
-
I can understand criticism of what has certainly been a very “messy” process, and there are legitimate differences regarding exercise of authority, and where it properly lies.
However, to me it seems obviously disingenuous to criticize vociferously the isolated inaccuracies and even inanities that are inevitable in such a enormous translation project as this, when the translation it’s replacing is riddled with vastly more numerous and arguably much more serious inaccuracies in both doctrine and language. And when, whatever its undoubted defects, the result of this new translation will surely be a much more rewarding worship experience for most English-speaking Catholics, not only because of its richer liturgical and scriptural nuances, but also because of the reexamination and “re-appropriation” of the worship of the Church that its implementation will entail (including discussions just such as this).
-
C. H. Edwards have you not noticed that critics of the proposed new translation are urging the 1998 translation of the ideal? And of course you exaggerate the demerits of the 1973 translation while playing down those of the new one; it is not a question of isolated inaccuracies and inanities but of a general failure of tone, taste and literacy, due to a false theory of liturgical translation. Have you really read the new translations carefully? Have the bishops?
-
How does the 1998 translation address the major deficiencies of the 1973 ICEL’s ordinary? I’m thinking of things like the seriously impoverished Gloria and the terribly inaccurate people’s responses. The 1998 translation seemed to go out of its way to avoid changing these parts (except in a sloppy way that just looks like misguided political correctness), but they are amongst the most important in terms of what the assembly internalizes and participates with.
-
-
Rome definitively rejected the 1998 translation. Period. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Period.
Soon enough, we’ll be using the new 2010 translation. The only question is how hard “we” will be working to make it work.
Some will, some won’t. Those priests whose ars celebranda has not been faithful to the 1973 translation–e.g., not saying the black, doing the red–probably won’t be much more faithful to the 2010 translation (if they use it at all).
But their generations are passing and, it appears from observation of priests ordained in this millennium, being replaced by a wonderful new generation of faithful young priests who will lead the restoration of the Church in coming decades.
-
“their generations are passing and, it appears from observation of priests ordained in this millennium, being replaced by a wonderful new generation of faithful young priests”
This trope in the talk of the “traditionalists” is unbiblical and uncharitable and generally unchristian. The oldies are dying off, we’ll kick them into their graves and put on our birettas and maniples. Fr Zuhlsdorf even refers to it as “the biological solution”, an expression with chilling overtones.
-
by
Please leave a reply.