The forthcoming English missal is becoming a hot news story, and not just in Catholic publications. As Pray Tell reported earlier, letters to the editor of the New Zealand Catholic have been running solidly against the missal. The trend is confirmed in recent letters to The Irish Times, America, and The Tablet: more than 3 to 1 against the new missal. Here are some interesting excerpts from 26 letters to these three publications. A total of six letters of the 26 are supportive of the missal (although rather weakly in some cases).
The Irish Times carried a letter (2/5) from Kieron Wood defending “for you and for many” – “What nonsense” to claim that this implies that Christ died only for some! Fr. Vincent Twomey also wrote (2/8) to defend this phrase and critique the statement of the Association of Catholic Priests that the new translation is “sexist, archaic, elitist, and obscure.” He writes, “What is of ‘grave concern’ to the association is what gives me hope: namely a language that is not conversational but formal, elevated, and theologically dense – if you wish, arcane. It may help to restore some semblance of the sacred to the celebration of the Mystery.” In the same issue, Fr. Dermot Lane wrote in support of the current “for you and for all”: “‘For many’ as understood in the usage of the English language is a restrictive designation… In Semitic use ‘for many’ is expansive, not restrictive.” The coming translation “loses the inclusive and universal meaning of the work of Jesus.”
Then came a slew of negative letters to The Irish Times – three on 2/9 and three more on 2/10. Tony Flannery told readers that a certain Anthony Ruff has withdrawn support for the missal by stating “I have concluded that I cannot promote the new missal translation with integrity.” Monica Dolan disagrees with Fr. Twomey: “I am fed up with the process that follows a line that keeps Jesus glued to the manger and nailed to the cross and infers all else is a mystery.” Cormac McMahon suggests, tongue in cheek, that everyone “make an honest effort” to “drop into daily conversation” words like ‘consubstantial’ and ‘and with your spirit.’ He concludes, “Few of the Catholic faithful, I fear, will come to love this new variety of Latin-English mishmash.”
Critiquing the coming “for you and for many,” Kieran O’Mahoney wrote to point out that “poured out for many” is used in Matthew and Mark but not in the earlier versions from Paul. And “even in St. Matthew, the words ‘poured out for many’ are preceded by ‘drink from it, all of you.’” Ted Mooney wrote “I had hoped that the new missal would show a willingness to espouse inclusiveness in relation to women,” and “Were Jesus to reappear among us today, he would be unlikely to use many four-syllable, 14-letter words to get his message across – and I can’t imagine him excluding women!” Soline Humber wrote simply this:” The latest Roman missal: a weapon of Mass destruction?” But Leo Talbot wrote, “Fears that such complicated language might be too difficult for the people in the pews are not well-founded… I am under no illusion that the introduction of the new translation will be easy. It will require a lot of work for it to be a success.”
Pádraig McCarthy wrote (2/15), “The simplest of language, used well, can inspire and challenge and instill awe… Using difficult language is not a good way to convey awe and mystery; it can result instead in confusion and frustration.” Dick Reeves compares the missal crisis to the situation in Egypt when he writes (2/16), “Let us have a Tahrir Square moment for Catholics and scare the… pants off Dr. Twomey and his buddies.”
America ran five letters (2/28), four of them negative toward the new missal. Mike Curren sees the new translation as “a great opportunity to explain the Mass.” He believes that it is “an opportunity to engage in catechesis that will not only increase our own faith, but will also – simply because it is a change – increase appreciation of that which for some has become mechanical and stale.” But Fr. Robert J. Mahoney writes that “some of the new revision wording seems ‘precious’ in a way that smacks of religious jargon that merely obfuscates.” Josephine A. Daly regrets that “Father Ruff’s letter comes too late”; much money has already been wasted on this project. “Could it be better spent providing homes and shelters for pregnant women…” in difficult times? She asks further, “Will a more literal translation of the missal bring Christ into our world?”
Fr. Harry Behan is very critical: “The imposition and the straightjacket of a dead language, Latin, on a living modern culture is ridiculous; and the Latin is low Latin, later than the Greek and not as beautiful. The lack of inclusive language is outrageous in this day and age.” Nicholas Narloch is equally critical: “Perhaps top-down decision making in Rome worked in the Middle Ages, but it does not work for American churchgoers in the 21st century… This archaic, self-selecting, celibate male club has proven its dysfunction in many ways.”
Charles S. Krawzewski writes to The Tablet (Letters Plus online, posted for the current week), “As a Latinist (and not a theologian), I must say I do welcome the tightening up of the translation of the Canon so that the Latin words ‘pro multis’…will finally read in English ‘for many,’ instead of the very curious ‘for all,’ which is nowhere found in Scripture, in the normative Latin texts of the Mass, or in any other vernacular translation of the Mass of Paul VI outside of our English version.” (He’s mistaken about other languages – per tutti, por todos, für alle, voor alle all mean “for all.”) Krawzewski also states, “I believe it matters less what translation of the Mass we use, than how we use the translations that have been approved for our use,” and he calls for “respect and prayerful awe for the great miracle that is transpiring among us.”
Pádraig McCarthy, who also wrote to The Irish Times, writes to The Tablet, “The stock of the hierarchy with the public is at low ebb due to recent scandals and other reasons…” He believes that the new missal will confirm for people “their sense of the hierarchy and the Vatican as autocratic, as the new translation is introduced without any attempt at consultation beforehand with the people.”
Somewhat supportive is the letter to The Tablet (2/26) of consecrated hermit Sr. Sandra Thérèse: “There are very few truly arcane expressions, and may it not be that such as there are might serve to remind us of the true solemnity of the liturgy in which we share and that sadly is so often celebrated in a casual manner nowadays?” But even she states, “I greatly deplore the manner in which the new text has been imposed, and the disrespect shown to our bishops” by the Vatican. Still, she concludes, “We have had long enough to air our grievances; it is time to express our faith by humble obedience.”
But the other three letters in this issue (2/26) of The Tablet are all negative. Pray Tell reader and commenter Chris McDonnell writes, “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 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 centralized opinions that all are expected to follow without question. Which is a pity.”
With few leaders giving public support for the new missal, Andy Bebington wonders whether such supporters “are few and/or that their belief in this new text is weak? And, if we can so assume, what can we infer from this ongoing silence?” Bernard Harrison writes, “When the subject of the new Mass was raised at our annual meeting of my own parish council, one highly respected parishioner asked on simple question: ‘Why?’ That was greeted with an immediate round of loud applause.”
The three “Letters Extra” to The Tablet a week ago (no longer online) were all negative. Angela Hanley wrote, “This disastrous translation whould neither be accepted nor implemented for the reasons outlined in various national papers and in The Tablet… The heart of this matter is not about translation, but about power and control.” Fr. Edward Butler wrote, “Despite the protestations of the committee of Vox Clara, there is, throughout the English-speaking world, widespread aversion of the new translation of the Roman Missal and many indications that those priests who have the gottle to do so will reject its utterly insensitive imposition. The latest group to speak out are the clergy of Ireland and they are to be commended for this. Not even Bishop Olmstead (member of Vox Clara – Ed.) is going to excommunicate all of them.”
And John Green wrote, “I see…that, according to Vox Clara, the Roman Missal has been ‘welcomed throughout the English-speaking world.’ … You report that Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, will not be able to deliver lectures supporting the new translation because he cannot support the translation. Surely, the proof of who is right will be the reaction to its introduction by members of native English-speaking parishes as it is gradually released into the wider world from September this year. Preliminary discussions with some of my fellow parishioners are not encouraging.”
Please leave a reply.