A Pray Tell regular, Father Philip Endean, SJ, has had an essay published in the Tablet in which he discusses the new translation, its reception, and a possible way forward. You can read it here.
“Sense and Sensitivities”
Comments
62 responses to ““Sense and Sensitivities””
-
Fr Endean lays it out so clearly!
“If we are to proceed with any confidence that the new translation represents God’s will for the whole Church, we urgently need this building up. Conformist zealotry will not suffice. We need intelligent, knowledgeable and sensitive leaders who really believe in this new text to go a lot more public than they have done so far.”
This is Solomonic!
-
Who has said this translation is infallible? This is a juridical matter; it was left to a committee, with committee members having an agenda and now we have gotten it and it is approved by the highest authority. In some places the translation is good and in other places there is much to be desired. The people’s parts are good, even the use of the theologically correct word “consubstantial.” I firmly believe our people can learn a new vocabulary word; don’t underestimate them; they are not dumb. The orations will need some tweaking down the road, but others will decide that, not me. The resource I’m using this lent and mailed to every household in our parish and used in our small Lenten home groups is Father Paul Turner’s “Understanding the New Translation.” I think he’s done the best job at “selling”this, recognizing some of the difficulties in a straightforward fashion without pushing any cynicism.
-
-
I’ve reviewed that. I would agree that Paul’s effort is reasonably good but we have refused to buy any LTP materials since Gabe Huck was ejected.
-
Fr. McDonald,
I believe the people are being asked (told?) to learn more than just one new vocabulary word. The USCCB has published a two page list of definitions of some thirty words that “may be unfamiliar” to “some Catholics” (available at http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/Words_in_the_Roman_Missal.pdf ). One of the words on this list is “consubstantial.” But, the list also contains words such as ineffable, oblation, and incarnation.
How can a translation that needs its own dictionary be considered to be in compliance with direction set down by the Second Vatican Council in its constitutional document Sacrosanctum Concilium ?
Specifically, paragraph 21 of Sacrosanctum Concilium states: “[T]exts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify. The Christian people, as far as possible, SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THEM EASILY” (emphasis added).
Additionally, paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium states that when translating the Latin liturgy into the mother tongues of the faithful, the translated rites “should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be SHORT, CLEAR, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and NORMALLY SHOULD NOT REQUIRE MUCH EXPLANATION” (emphasis added).
-
Russ, thanks for that link, I haven’t seen it. And yes, I think it is within the powers of comprehension for our laity to learn them all, after all, we have the most educated laity today than in all of the history of the Church, many more educated than a goodly number of the clergy and religious of the Church. Nothing you write seems to have been contradicted by the current translation even if it is clumsy in some places and uses “hard” words. I suspect by the end of the 7th grade most children using your link could well memorize these “hard” vocabulary words. These are and have been within the people’s power of comprehension. To suggest otherwise is rather condescending toward them. “Condescending” can be looked up in the dictionary.
-
Fr. McDonald,
Thank you for addressing the merits of my question and pointing out that the current translation can be read as being compliant with Sacrosanctum Concilium. I must say, however, that the apparent persuasiveness of your rebuttal seems a bit tarnished by the condescending tone of your last two sentences.
-
Well, Russ, you are correct and it just goes to show that none of us and any translation of the Mass will be perfect on this side of the Parousia. I apologize.
-
-
Some of the words in that glossary are words that Catholics should already know, by their use in readings or homilies, by receiving decent catechesis, or by having read something else that uses the word in a similar manner:
Adoption (in the theological sense, although the natural sense leads to the theological sense)
Chalice (should be common knowledge)
Communion (should be common knowledge, although some people might not consider the multiple levels of meaning in this word)
Consecration (should be common knowledge)
Contrite (as in, “act of contrition”. already in the current translation in one of the priest’s quiet prayers. some missals provide such quiet prayers, and some priests say such quiet prayers aloud…)
Covenant (in the current translation)
Damnation (in the current translation)
Implore (if they’re familiar with “The Raven”, perhaps…?)
Incarnation (Christianity 101)
Intercessor (“intercession” is in the current translation, this word might be too)
Lord God of Hosts (I don’t think there should be a comma, by the way — this comes up in the readings a few dozen times)
Mediator (from Scripture, definitely, and possibly in the current translation)
Only-Begotten Son (in the current translation, although perhaps people don’t understand the significance of “begotten [not made]”)
Paschal (current translation uses “Paschal Mystery” a good deal — this seems to be a rather popular term in the Church since Vatican II, so I’d hope Catholics know about it and know what it means.)
Redemption (I’m pretty sure this is in the current translation)
-
May I say, as a “person in the pews”, that “chalice” is the word in your list that trips me up? In Bible translations I’ve referred to, Jesus takes a “cup”. Thinking historically, this could have been the “best cup in the house”, but “chalice” has a connotation that goes beyond what we find in the text. It makes the Last Supper sound like a luxurious feast, which it surely was not, given the circumstances and economic resources of those gathered. I’ve also looked up ‘calix’, and although it is literally a “flowery” word (sorry, couldn’t resist!), it really doesn’t carry the meaning of “chalice” the way I understand it.
-
The assumption that the cup of the Last Supper was necessarily of common materials is just that – an assumption. And it is a questionable. The Jewish people through many centuries (and I believe there evidence this was true in the time of Jesus, before the post-Temple seder ritual became what it became) celebrated Passover with precious and noble items. It’s not at all impossible that the Last Supper included a cup made of precious material of some sort.
That doesn’t resolve the chalice vs cup issue, but it’s important not to project the assumptions we take from movie and painting accounts of the Last Supper and assume they are historical facts.
-
The USCCB tells us that one of the reasons for changing the words “for all” to “for many” is that “for many” is “the wording used in the Biblical narrative account of the Last Supper found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.” [1] Cardinal Arinze of the Congregation for Divine Woship makes the same point. [2]
If the intent is to bring the liturgy more literally in line with English language translations of the Bible, why was the word “cup” changed to “chalice” in the same Eucharistic prayer where “for all” was changed to “for many” ? Every English language version of the Bible I’ve checked uses the word “cup.” I’ve even checked a replica edition of the 1611 King James Bible.
[1] http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/translating_sixquestions.shtml
[2] http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/translating_arinze_letter.shtml
-
-
I would also say that in order to “express more clearly the holy things,” we should words that are less likely to be confused with mundane subjects, where possible. That means that a technical vocabulary will be necessary at times.
There is also a fair amount of didactic material in some of the rites already. I’m thinking of the Rite of Baptism, for example. And some priests tend to make a lot of didactic and explanatory narrations and exhortations during the Mass, even with the current translation.
I do not think the vocabulary of the new translation is something to be wary of, and I think it is within our power of comprehension, even if some of the words are foreign to us and require a bit of explanation.
-
I agree that we should not be wary of the vocabulary of the new translation. I also agree that it is within “our” power of comprehension. We obviously are fluent in English and have the resources to research those words that we don’t know. In my diocese, however, we have large numbers of Asian, African, and Hispanic immigrants for whom English is a second language. Many of these folks struggle with common everyday English and don’t have ready access to a dictionary much less the internet. I worry that this new translation will leave them behind.
-
I would also say that in order to “express more clearly the holy things,” we should words that are less likely to be confused with mundane subjects, where possible.
What did you say “incarnation” means?
Seriously. Don’t words like “consubstantial” and “incarnation” imply a closeness between the divine and the human? If we are applying a different standard to our vocabulary, how do we teach that God chose to unite the Divine with what is human?
-
Many of these folks struggle with common everyday English and don’t have ready access to a dictionary much less the internet.
Buy one for your parish and keep it in your parish library or office or in the back of the Church?
-
Samuel,
What an elegantly simple solution to a difficult problem. Thank you so much.
-
-
-
We did have a translation change in 1970. I remember having to relearn much, and I was just a lay person. It wasn’t just the Missal but many standard prayers children were expected to memorize in CCD. I recall well the mild jokes at the time. The new translation was not received with rapturous conviction, but it was largely received in time, and some things outside the Missal succeeded and others did not. Most people in the pews have probably not thought much about it since, but there have been some yearning for a better, more euphonious and less “flat” translation. Some parts of the new translation are better (the Gloria and the Sanctus are largely returned to what they were before 1970), but until we have translation principles better than those of 1969 and 2001, we will wait again.
Having worshiped in the past for years in communities that embraced (not uniformly) the idea of inclusive language, I will venture that people who have an ideological approach to translation will applaud much that is at best of mixed quality if it moves closer to their desiderata. This is outside the first standard deviation of the bell curve of people in the pews at large, of course.
-
In my own little parish I would venture to say that – despite all the catechesis and study groups that take place in advance – the majority of folks who turn up on the first Sunday of Advent will be unprepared and they will just have to muddle through somehow.
If those who love the new translation and those who don’t start getting in each other’s faces over it that will simply break down bonds of essential Christian charity in the larger community. Better to speak well of it if you can and accept it in silence if you cannot.
In either case it’s probably a good idea to hand it over to Jesus to make whatever good that will come out of it. My wife advised me to live in the moment as well, and that’s what I’m going to try to do. Words are words. Charity is eternal.
-
-
Somehow I am amused that the bishops think that “damnation” is not in the vocabulary of most English-speaking Catholics.
-
I was rather shocked at most of the words chosen. I can see “consubstantial” or “oblation” causing confusion, but most of them seemed like words you would run into in a middle or high school English class if not in some of the older hymns still sung in many churches.
Also, is my experience really unusual in that most people I’ve encountered say “chalice” rather than “cup” when referring to the vessel used at Mass?
-
-
Let’s just have the translation schism already. The 1974 OF faithful can go in one direction, the 2010 OF faithful another, and the EF faithful can continue happily in their own orbit. So long as each party follows their liturgical books according to the rubrics, let every church celebrate according to their sensibilities. Is this not diversity?
People in my diocese will drive from one end of the jurisdiction to another just to hear the EF or a high church OF. My parents and I rarely set foot in our geographical parish, as we are not attracted to informal worship. They and I worship at two very “high” liturgical churches in different towns. All our donations benefit these two parishes only. The two parishes are almost a meta-parish as the high church Catholics of the region will shuttle back and forth between the parishes for different events. There’s even a network of EF and high liturgical OF priests that cater to our community.
“Geographical parishes” are completely finished. Catholics now form communities based on liturgical sensibility, not neighborhood. Why should anyone pretend that Catholics attend the closest church by default?
I am sure that progressive Catholics behave similarly. Why, then, is anyone calling for a liturgical Act of Conformity? Some here have been calling for this uniformity for the entire existence of the blog. Let’s just give it up.
-
Actually, a lot of people still stick to their geographical parishes, even when they have choices. Mass times and confessions are a more common choice issue.
-
This isn’t necessarily my experience. Perhaps there would more diffusion if parishes offered different liturgies.
Again, I see no use for uniformity where deep polarizations already exist within dioceses. My geographical parish in the United States will probably not implement all of the 2010 translation, or do so at the point of the bishop’s croizer. The two parishes my family has attended for years will have the new translation eagerly unwrapped and ready on 1st Advent next year. We can stop the tears if we just let everyone go their way.
I support a prismatic view of liturgical allegiance even though I currently spend most of the year in an Canadian archdiocese that is thoroughly ridden with liturgical abuses. I put up with it because I believe in this radical autonomy despite deep alienation. I am convinced that division is pacification, at least in this case.
-
-
Jordan Z.—Why, then, is anyone calling for a liturgical Act of Conformity? Some here have been calling for this uniformity for the entire existence of the blog. Let’s just give it up—
because, Jordan, the assumption underlying statements like “Unity doesn’t need uniformity” is at odds with “lex orandi lex credendi”. Want to see the Church stratify (even more)? Just keep offering more and more varied modes of worship which cater to people’s tastes.
If ‘lex orandi’ is true, then people’s need for different forms of worship must be a reflection of differing beliefs about God and man. That’s not
Catholic.The drive towards uniformity in worship is necessary to being IMO Catholic. The drive towards solemnity in worship is necessary, because that is what our Lord calls us to via ‘the Cleansing of the Temple’. Isn’t that one of those new Luminous Mysteries?
-
-
I’d like to approach the concerns expressed above from the perspective of having been a former middle and high school teacher (albeit in choral music.) Most of my colleagues then, who were generally acknowleged to be masterful teachers, employed a variety of content delivery modes in order to enable that most of their students’ comprehension and assimilation of that content, or for this discussion “vocabulary” or concepts was achieved. In my discipline, what with a rainbow of poetic and prosaical texts in many diverse languages that would be at the core of an aesthetic performance and reiteration in a believable manner beyond the “fourth wall” to the audience, the most valuable tools in my arsenal were contextualization and allegory. To insist that any English speaker, young or old with a basic working vocabulary, would remain hapless to comprehend the definition of “gibbet” (that notorious example) within the context of the subject and verb which accompanies that object seems to me, pardon the pun, demeaning.
On another subject, I wondered how Fr. Endean could wander through the labyrinth of rhetoric about the politics surrounding the process and implementation of this translation without nary an example to bolster his diagnosis of the problem?
I’m not a huge fan about Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s take on “all things.” But just a short look at his post today about this Sunday’s collect is precisely what Fr. Endean declares isn’t being publicly proclaimed by MR3 supporters. It is a simple and honest clarification that evidently shows a coherent improvement of the prayer’s translation and meaning.
But I agree with those who admonish authorities not to underestimate the ability of the PIPs to comprehend texts that are more complex in structure. -
Mr. Wheeler – welcome and thanks for your excellent, pithy, and insightful comments. Allow me to add two items:
– again, we have been over this again and again. Simply put, there have been choices made in this VoxClara 2010 version that you can find reasons for. Fr. Endean and many others raise the questions because we have had a process in place since VII (ICEL) that made careful, precise, and well-reasoned choices on many of the words & phrases in this “bibliography”. There were good decisions to use what they did in 1973 and then improved in 1998. The VC2010 makes different choices – neither are wrong but many question why we need to change the translation rules in mid-experience and if the VC2010 changes really are pastoral; meet the SC principles (not someone’s interpretation 45 years later). Example – all vs. many; ICEL had experts document and publish why “all” was chosen (published in Notiatiae). You can find scripture to back either choice….but “many” in MO, doesn’t have the linguistic, liturgical, or pastoral justifications that “all” has.
– this example can be repeated for most of the other choices (again, it feels like a grudge match?)Finally, this discussion has seriously veered from Fr. Endean’s point – one I had missed. If this is so positive, where are the bishops? Leaving it to the USCCB; a small group of experts to speak for them; they copy/paste the USCCB statement in their diocesan rags?
Thought you made an excellent point, Fr. Endean – not sure we are really addressing it.
Fr. Allan – sorry, VC2010 is so much more than a “juridical” decision+that speaks volumes.
-
Mr. deHaas,
Please call me Russ. May I call you Bill? Thank you for the kind words of welcome. I am indeed a newcomer here. My apologies to the group for going over ground that apparently has been pretty well worked. I have a feeling this may happen more frequently though as more people find this wonderful little blog.
-
of course and it helps some times to go back over things – your contributions add your own insights and experience which is appreciated and reflects an obvious pastoral sense and liturgical knowledge that will support the on-going discussion of this blog. Thanks again.
-
-
-
When the newer lectionary was introduced in 1998 (Sundays) and 2002 (the rest) I anticipated a much improved experience listening to the Scriptures being proclaimed at Mass. (While I don’t consider myself a professional scholar, four semesters of Greek in college, picking up Latin on my own and continuing my study through my adult life gives me a little cred.)
To say I was disappointed in 2002 is an understatement. I could not understand why translators could not render the text more beautifully while remaining faithful at the same time. Meanwhile, one side of the spectrum decried the lack of inclusive language, while the other side breathed a sigh of relief that inclusive language was downplayed. Most people in the pew noticed nothing different. I don’t recall any one who felt that leaders needed to “go more public” either to defend or to detract from that new translation. (Maybe because blogging or online conversation was not as developed then.)
The 2010 translation of the Missal seems destined for a similar reception, albeit this one puts different words in the mouths of EVERYONE, not just the lector. Again, one side will decry this or that deficiency, the other will breathe a sigh of relief that “it can’t be worse than 1973,” and for my part, I can’t help feeling that I will be disappointed at its non-perfection (or at least at the missed opportunity for greater perfection).
Obviously most people in the pew will notice a difference, but will it be a major stumbling block for them, or just a bump in the road? If their pastor makes a fuss about it, will they support him or see him as a crank? If their pastor does not make a fuss, will they be able to tell the difference between ‘conformist zealotry’ and mere acquiescence?
I think the bishops have made the calculation that they can get away with this with minimal loss. But to answer Fr. Endean’s concern, I could easily get up and present this text as a vast improvement…
-
Ben – agree with some of your comments. As a lector, was disappointed that the three year cycle was not vastly improved – we continue to have too long sentences; phrasing and pronouns that make little sense; etc. But, as you say, doubt that the PIP noticed much. What they do notice now is whether the lector can be heard; does the lector read so that the PIP can understand; and even at times does the lector Proclaim or just read in a monotone (in our parish, lectors can be and are spoken to if they seem ill prepared; not loud enough; rush too fast; or speak with no inflection)
But, you are right – it may just be a “temproary” bump in the road with VC2010…..which is sad because it is a loss for the church in terms of the process; its impact on ecclesiology; its impact on liturgical composition and music; its sets in place a go forward pendelum that will continue to swing from dynamic to literal – it would seem that we should have learned more by now.
-
Yes, we have veered away from Philip’s topic.
I personally think that squabbling over a short list of ecclesiastical jargon is not a productive use of time. If we are going to focus on the text at all, we should, as Bill implies, be concentrating on the syntax, which is what is going to be the killer, Latin and English rhetorical styles being as different as they undoubtedly are.
Philip’s point is well taken. The majority of directors of offices for worship and chairs of liturgy commissions across the US are loyally working away at preparing for the transition, but behind the scenes their eyes are rolling and they are depressed at having to front something which is clearly a step backwards. I am sure that their reaction to having to implement the 1998 translation would have been quite different. At the same time, they cannot afford to stick their heads above the parapet…..
-
I keep hearing about those poor people in diocesan offices who have so much work cut out for them, rolling their eyes as they prepare materials to make the new translation look good. Is this a new kind of clericalism? Is it ivory tower cynicism?
I wonder if any of these poor diocesan beauracrats have ever had to do anything controversial on a parish level, like a renovation or a fund raiser to do a renovation or build a building. Now that’s a hard sell, especially if you are touching a historic building.
Don’t tell me about the trials and tribulations of those in diocesan offices. I know them only too well and would prefer the trenches. So I suspect most of us in the trenches don’t really care about the opinions of our diocesan offices especially if it is counter productive.
-
Fr. Allan, the point is that many or most people in diocesan offices don’t believe in the new translation. None of your examples, nor anything in your dismissive attitude, convinces me that they have no right to feel this way. The point is, they do.
There is a rotten reality in our Church: something has broken down in decision-making process, and people have to do things they don’t believe in. The leaders forcing things from the top aren’t listening to those below them. The bishops aren’t claiming their rightful role because they feel powerless before the Vatican.
Your solution is to ignore all this, stop talking about it!, and make the best of it. Fine. But I wish you could see why, for other people, the better response is to name the problem and long for a better way of doing business. Telling people to be quiet won’t make the problem they’re naming go away.
awr
-
If you read what I wrote Fr. Anthony, I said that the time now is to implement. If a new time comes to revise this and it well might come before you or I die, but I don’t know, then make your concerns known once again. Surely your concerns were heard weren’t they? But others succeeded where you didn’t. Once we’ve actually prayed the new translation for several years, I suspect it will be for more than 10 to 20 years, then sure, raise a ruckess. And no, I don’t mind anyone hating the new translation or the process by which it came about, that’s their business, but don’t hate us who like it or have come to terms with it. That street goes both ways.
-
Fr. Allan,
Yes, you keep saying over and over that it’s time to implement and everyone should stop talking about the systemic problems. Well, let me say this clearly: people aren’t going to stop talking just because you want them to. The issue is not simply the quality of the translation. The issue is a broken system of church leadership. The translation is but a symptom of a larger problem. Getting everyone to be quiet and just implement will not make that issue go away. And people will not stop talking about it, no matter how often you beg them to.
awr
-
Fr. Anthony, you’d have a lot more credibility by backing up with statistics your contention of the vast majority of people in diocesan offices who oppose this translation or are in the midst of depression for having to implement the translation. And certainly you are ascribing to me way to much power as it concerns begging people to shut up when all I’ve said is that I don’t give a flip about diocesan personnel’s feelings. I haven’t begged anyone to shut up, but simply get out of the way and let me implement this thing in consultation with my parish. As far as systemic change in how authority is exercised in the Church, God bless you in your efforts at reformation. I do hope, though, that you will allow for dissent from your point of view.
-
Fr. Allan,
You have the habit of misquoting or misstating, and it doesn’t help the discussion.
I didn’t say “the vast majority” (because I don’t know that), I said “many or most” because it could be either of those. There is a difference.Yes, you have asked people to stop complaining and simply implement. Many times. Please don’t deny it now. This is dishonest.
Your last line is a cheap shot – whether I allow dissent from my opinion. My opinion is that there is a systemic problem in the church (reflected in the translation) and we should talk about it. Your opinion is that we should not, we should make the best of the translation and not talk about those other issues. Never, never have I said that you shouldn’t state your view or that you must agree with me. I have said, rather, that you should let those with other opinions state them. You have said that people should stop doing that and get on board with the implementation.
awr
-
Fr. Anthony, there is a vast difference between stop complaining and stop talking. Not all talkers are complainers and the context is implementing a mandated translation on the parochial level. I am free I think to indicate as long as you post it, what I think is helpful and unhelpful in terms of implementation.
As it concerns the larger issue of authority in the Church, this Italian/Canadian/Georgian living in the heart of Dixie is one obscure priest who has a job to implement the new translation and to lead and minister to my parish. The issues of authority are more dear and near to you, but don’t confuse that with what most priests in the trenches are going to have to do with the new translation and being both respectful and obedient to their bishop.
-
-
-
Yes, priests like to go their own way, ignoring lay groups and lay bureaucrats, and even ignoring calls from their bishops for creative liturgy or more cooperation with the laity.But is not this individualism the essence of clericalism? And given the deadness of the resultant liturgies, can we not say that it has been counter-productive?
-
(Fr.?) Joe, no, most priests like ignoring lay bureaucrats that are totally disconnected from their parish life. I don’t know about your neck of the woods, but in mine we have a very strong pastoral council, stewardship council, finance council and committees for various functions connected to all of these. We’ve discussed the new translation and I’ve had very good feedback from them as to how to proceed and what might be some of the pitfalls here.
So I might ask what your experience is on the parish level. I’d find that helpful
-
-
That all sounds wonderful, but why do you categorize the lay church employees whose anguished voices have been heard here as out of touch bureaucrats? They sound much more like the kind of people whose work you value in your own parish. Or are you contrasting parish vibrancy with a dead bureaucracy at the diocesan level? (I do help out in parishes here in Japan, but I have no experience in running parishes; but this should not disqualify me for criticism, since people criticize professors and theologians all the time, without it being expected that they should themselves be such.)
-
Why in the world criticize something you are asked to implement on the parochial level. Of what use is that at this point when all is ready and set to go, unless one wants to foment factionalism at least or a rebellion at worst which is nothing new in the Church, we’ve had minor and major schisms over much less I guess. I’m not Pollyanna about things, but the crass negativism that is expressed in so many places strikes me as counter productive at this point–it may have been needed earlier in the process of this translation but not now. If a new translation process is developed in the future, then sure voice concerns over the new one we’ve implemented.
-
Father Allan,
Why? Because the emperor is still naked. And he’s still parading about.
-
-
-
But the issue was that these people CANNOT criticize the texts though like most of us they know that the texts are junk. How much more joyful and unproblematic their role would by if the Church had given them a worthy product to present. In any case the criticisms you are hearing now are as nothing to what you will hear when the texts are imposed in a few months. There are millions upon millions of English speaking Catholics in very many countries. They are being asked, more or less explicitly, to ‘make the best of a bad job?
-
Frankly, it would be a glorious moment in the development of our Church if the people would rise up as in South Africa and shout with one voice: ‘The Emperor has no clothes!’ In the Andersen story it only took one little boy to prompt such universal recognition..
-
Australian priest are acting up: http://www.smh.com.au/national/priests-threaten-mass-exodus-over-changes-to-liturgy-20110218-1azmf.html
-
The last two paragraphs of the link to Australian priest’s story is perhaps the most interesting:
“The executive director of the National Liturgy Commission, Peter Williams, who has spent the past year travelling the country to explain the new Mass, said it had already been successfully introduced in New Zealand.
‘I think that’s what’s going to happen here. Of course there will be some irritability, but in due course people will have made the change.'”
Then of course CatholicCulture.org has its own opinion on the priest in question:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=9320
-
Dear Rita (as editor) and Fr. Ruff,
I preface my concern about the tone and direction of this and other topic threads and commentary with my admiration for your honesty and enthusiasm during the myriad forensic deconstructions of both the process and the product of MR3. I have publicly defended Fr. Anthony’s decision to disassociate himself from any further public support of the Missal’s implementation.
To this non-scholarly layman, it seems that one could quip that the presumed volume of dissatisfaction with both process and product could be boiled down to a great many folks wanting to “Complain a New Church into being.” And I know that is not the intent, but in good faith I ask, “What are we to do?” My anecdotal experience is contrary to many of the negative assessments that are now litanies here and other forums.
When, in the history of the Church, has there been a time when the institution wasn’t rife with “rotten realities?” But, does not the “church” of our Lord Jesus Christ still witness to His justice in many tangible and immediate ways? Do these oblique indictments of the injustices of federalism or autocracy stop the faithful from fulfilling the mandates given us in Matthew 25 and the Great Commission? Not in my neck of the woods, and that’s all that I can attest to in truth.
What would you have us do? -
The ‘what are we to do?’ question is close to what the original article was about. But I don’t think Mr Culbreth’s historical argument can quite be used in this way, for two reasons. Firstly, modern education and communications media make us sensitive to what’s ethically problematic in the Church in ways that were not, practically, possible before. Secondly, there’s the tricky question of co-operation. When there’s controversy on moral or doctrinal questions, public representatives of the Church have the option of avoiding the contentious issue, and hence not having to say directly what they believe to be false. This way of handling the matter is not open to priests when it’s (in their conscientious view) a retrograde and alienating translation that is being imposed without due collegial process.
-
I wonder if I can ask friends on this blog for feedback on one specific point.
In common with right-wing commentators in the UK, I felt exasperated by what the Bishops’ spokesman was saying: namely that the UK clergy are a pragmatic lot, and in the end will just get on with it. Empirically, that’s my best guess as to what will happen; in terms of the spiritual and psychological health of Catholics, this also seems to me disastrous. I hint at this–fairly circumspectly–when I say that priests and others uneasy with what is happening may ‘opt out of their responsibility, put their heads down and pragmatically go through the motions, against their better judgement, of working with the new text.’ A sentence or two later, I call this ‘spiritually corrosive’. There is something rotten about a culture that encourages you to go against your conscience on a major matter; and the tradition of ‘obedience’ is misused when it legitimates things like this. Jesus was obedient to the Father, and anything but to the corrupt religious officials of his time. The effect of such jobsworth, half-hearted conformism is to spread cynicism, bad faith, ‘the PIP don’t listen anyway, so who cares?’–hope and conviction seep out of people’s commitment. That’s terrible. We need somehow, as a body, to acquire a collective will to make this text work–which minimally requires that the sensible people who believe in it (if there are any) have to do more to spread their belief in order to help the rest of us.
My sense now, partly nourished by a conversation with one of my confrères in my house, is that ‘spiritually corrosive’ may be too harsh–even if old fashioned ‘do what you are told and shut up’ is too easy, and even if the process by which the text was imposed is recognised for the deplorable outrage it is. But I struggle to articulate the middle position implied here. Does anyone have any ideas?-
Fr. Endean – not sure I have any good suggestions for you. Over the years have heard many a priest say:
– you can’t fight city hall
– church is local (I make my own catholic world)
– can’t control Rome
– can’t change the bishop
– what if I have the “wrong” answer
– etc.IMO, have worked with folks in both church and the corporate world and my explanation is that we are all different in terms of how we handle the every day “compromises” that we are called upon to make i.e. swallow your anger or objections; play the dutiful parent or subordinate; go along to get along; internally convince yourself that the “community”, company goals, common good are in balance more important than risking this specific “fight”
What I have experienced is that we are all on a continuum in terms of this. Some have an ability to handle dissonance, disagreements, even anger without having to drive into a ditch over the issue. Others are easily upset over even minor issues. Most of us are somewhere in the middle.
But, every once and a while, certain folks draw a line in the sand and can not “play” the game – it does become a matter of conscience; it impacts their own notion of a threat to the common good; to integrity (personal and communal). Not doing or saying only leaves you feeling “complicit” and this can lead to depression; serious discouragement; disillusionment.
Unfortunately, in many ways each of us has to go through our own process to understand where we stand; what impacts our own integrity; and, if you are in a position of leadership, what can you do with sincerity and passion?
My guess is that we will find folks across the whole continuum. For me personally, explaining away; not being direct/honest/transparent is not the way to handle this initiative (but, then I am not in a public position). Speaking out constructively, supporting initiatives despite differences but then moving forward.
-
-
I was struck by a comment by Fr McDonald a few days ago, saying that he experimented changing some of the prayers (introducing little bits of the new missal early) and that no one noticed.
But, if it is true that we “PIP” mostly don’t listen, then, isn’t that a serious problem? A different problem for sure, but isn’t it a cause for worry?
-
Claire, I get no feedback whatsoever when I use the four “newer” Eucharistic prayers for special occasions, which I think are written in the fashion that the 1998 translation would have been. But that doesn’t mean they are not listening, it simply means that they are not overly critical of the Church’s prayer unless of course they think I’m making it up. No one has even suggested that to me, but of course they know me. 🙂
-
I should also say that I have never had any real complaints about our current translation even when I use the alternative opening prayers which are about as bad as they get and I have to stop from biting my tongue each time I do pray one of those. No one else seems to mine though, but I’m sure they’re listening.
-
-
-
Thank you, Fr. Endean, for your perspective. To be clear, my citation of Fr. Ruff’s quote wasn’t intended to argue against ecclesial transparency, but to merely state the obvious, the barque still sails on to this day, and despite the varied Captain Bligh’s or Queeg’s that have taken the helm over time. Fr. Ruff’s taking point on calling into question the legitimacy of the authoritative process of this liturgical enterprise, particularly when also accompanied by contrasting that with the unadorned simplicity of Christ’s second command, doesn’t answer our shared concern, “What are we to do?”
Is MR3, essentially, a “deal breaker” that will compel more fracturing and factionalism among the folks, lay, consecrated and ordained all, who choose to keep boots on the ground and labor in the fields, as His branches?
I don’t believe that the wonder of open access that we’ve inherited and enjoyed, including the latest reincarnation of social networking ala “Facebook” complicates or mitigates the truly faithfuls’ need and decision to worship at the RC Mass or not. YMMV.-
Thanks for focusing the question: is MR3 a deal breaker? I’m aware that for many other liberal-minded Catholics the answer may be no, and that the deal may either not break at all or break somewhere else. And MR3 is not going to send me out of the Church. But, unless something happens between now and imposition day (and I am serious in my requests for help in this regard), it is going to stop me presiding at the Eucharist in public in English. Not because I don’t recognise the authority of bishops–but because I fear that my outrage at the violations that have led to this text will make it impossible for me to use them in a way that helps others pray. I don’t think it will be a sensible alternative simply to ignore the abrogation of 1973–there’s a clericalism in that option which I don’t think can be justified.
-
-
In 2003, I went to one of the early organizing meetings for Voice of the Faithful in this diocese; about thirty people in a circle each expressed what they wanted.
I said that I wanted a networking organization that enabled Catholics to meet and talk to one another without chaperones. If from their conversations, some people found that they wanted to do something, they should form their own organization for the specific purposes that they wanted to accomplish.
Unfortunately finding places where Catholics can just talk and network without chaperones is very difficult. Liberals as well as everyone else seems devoted to promoting the agenda of a small leadership group rather than conversation and friendship.
This blog does a good job of allowing a conversation about things liturgical with a minimum amount of chaperoning. Whether individuals do any thing about these conversations, or organize around them, is something up to them to do outside of the blog.
Of course blogs have a limited capacity to develop personal relationships. Perhaps someday people in a diocese or even in a parish will be able to gather and talk about the liturgy without chaperones.
What would I have us do? Continue the conversation; certainly not stop talking about things just because we cannot do anything.
-
Jack, thanks as well for your input and for offering an answer.
I have to say it is my hope that “how we talk” into the future is folded into the culture as described by Deacon Bauerschmidt’s reflections in his recent post.
If not, then I tend to regard a lot of the polemic, as coined by Robert Fripp on King Crimson’s DISCIPLINE album, to be just “Elephant Talk.” 😉 -
Fr. Endean,
I would rather know what my pastor really believes, even if he disagrees with the church. Easy for me to say this, my job’s not at stake, but without honesty how can there be trust, and without that how can there be the intimacy that shares belief?
-
quite!
-
This comment was published in the TABLET following Philip Endean’s article last week.
Questions about the Missal
Fr Philip Endean’s article (“Sense and sensitivities”,
19 February) raises further urgent
issues surrounding the coming new translation
of the Roman Missal.
Might we ask what makes our bishops so
sure that there will not be problems here in
England once the detail of the new translation
is made evident in parishes? Where is the
evidence for their argument? The lack of
informed discussion so far at parish level, the
attitude we are now experiencing of “this is
it, you will do it and it will be good for you”,
is damaging and will give rise to great difficulty
in the coming months.
How many parishes will be made aware of
the machinations in Rome that curtailed the
excellent work of the International
Commission on English in the Liturgy (Icel)
and gave rise to the text from Vox Clara that
is now on offer? Or will all that be conveniently
disregarded as we near the date for the use
of the new text? Collegiality, one of the central
gifts of the Second Vatican Council, has
been gradually replaced by the dissemination
of centralised opinions that all are expected
to follow without question. Which is a pity.
But above all, might we ask for a greater
degree of understanding and courtesy as opinions
are exchanged and the issues debated?
That is the least we are all entitled to expect
as we ask honest questions about the quality
and meaning of the language to be used
in the celebration of the Eucharist, the very
centre of our Christian lives.
Chris McDonnell
Little Haywood, Staffordshire UK-
Thanks, Chris. Well put.
-
by
Please leave a reply.