The Irish Times today reported that members of the Catholic bishops’ Commission for Worship, Pastoral Renewal and Faith Development met with the Association of Catholic Priests to discuss the Missal translation. Five bishops, members of the Commission, attended the meeting at Maynooth, at which priests reported dissatisfaction with the Missal and asked that its implementation be suspended.
Ireland’s bishops announced that they will issue a statement about the Missal “shortly.”
The bishops are stuck in a hard place — if they have the courage to suspend, Rome will hate them; if they don’t, the harried faithful will. Remember that resonant South African voice: “I hate you, hierarchy!” The worst thing they can do is produce some mealy-mouthed spin and reassurance, and I fear that that is precisely what they will do.
And your evidence that the faithful hate or will hate the new translation is what precisely? Apart from the fact that you don’t like it, that is?
Don’t you have to just smile at the irony of somone who is not prepared to stand up and be counted looking for a headcount.
Or the irony of challenging someone to show how widely he has consulted among the faithful when there was no consultation of the faithful.
Tradere traducere was never so apt.
Ceile De, the majority of people who have been exposed to the new translation so far have expressed great dislike of it. The only ardent proponents of the new translation seem to be its authors and even they seem to have fallen mostly silent. If you can cite widespread warm support for the new translation, please do so. Do you yourself like the new translation?
I recall that the bishops of Ireland held out against the existing ICEL translation until relatively late, much later than the USA. But just as they eventually received the existing text most of us now use (until Advent) they will do the right thing and lead their priests into accepting the more contemporary translation that brings English-speaking Catholics into conformity with other Catholic vernacular translations of Paul VI’s missal.
It is an error to presuppose that most or even a significant number of clergy and faithful oppose the new translation. The voices of ecclesiastical professional and bureaucrats are not representative of typical parish priests, religious, or lay faithful due to the self-selecting tendency we see in the Church professional class. More traditional Catholics have long been frozen out of ecclesiastical bureaucratic circles. For example, how many proponents of the extraordinary form or the new translation write for NCR’s Celebration magazine?
It is not, however, an error to suppose that most clergy and faithful who have read the new translation dislike it. The idea that there is an invisible army of supporters for the new translation who have been frozen out of liberal publications is unconvincing. In any case, could they not write for conservative publications? I don’t see enthusiasm for the new translation anywhere. I do see a lot of sarcasm against critics of the new translation (from Damian Thompson, William Oddie etc.) but even they seem to have nothing really warm and enthusiastic to say about the new translation. You yourself praise the new translation for its conformity with others — but when I checked this claim in regard to the Roman Canon as currently recited in Spanish it turned out to be untrue. It is also untrue in regard to the beautiful French translation (which the Vatican intends to hatchet anyway).
Joe you’re doing it again: trying to let your facts get in the way of the good stories of others.
So where is this evidence that “most” will dislike the new translation?
There is no such evidence because at this point “most” are still unaware that there is a new translation. Evidence for widespread opposition is as scarce as evidence for widespread support. Sure, there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence… Is it really surprising that a majority of Priests who are part of a group that has publicly opposed the translation are opposed to it? I will be attending a a conference in several weeks, and I’m pretty certain I could take a poll there and confidently conclude that over 90% are strongly supportive. Given the make up of the group attending, that would be no surprise.
It’s intellectually dishonest to make broad assumptions about “most” of anything, particularly when such assumptions are presented as facts to support our own opinion.
Evidence for widespread opposition is as scarce as for widespread support? Well, compare Fr Ryan’s 22000 with their articulate critical comments as against Fr Zuhlsdorf’s 5000. What I fail to find on Fr Z’s or other such sites is clear text-based approval of the new translation — rather than bullying talk about a done deal and the evil of dissent, or complaints about the 1973 translation. Your are resorting to abstract epistemological quibbles, and to accusations of intellectual dishonesty, instead of providing evidence of joy or contentment from those who have studied the new translation closely.
instead of providing evidence of joy or contentment from those who have studied the new translation closely
Joe…
What exactly is meant by providing evidence of “joy or contentment”? That’s the standard? And what is so “abstract” about the claim that there isn’t any reliable data about support or opposition to the new translation because there is not a large enough group to collect data from at this point? Sure you can cite Fr. Ryan’s 22000 “articulate critics” (again, strange how the opposition are all “articulate while supporters merely quibble… can you say “bias” anyone?), but why exactly do supporters have reason to speak out right now? I think you are probably well aware enough how the dynamics of opposition and protest work. Following your logic, I would have to conclude that a great majority of those in the pews support all-male altar servers since I can find far more people vocalizing an opinion against them than I can find those speaking out in support of them.
And then there is the actual core issue that has been carefully avoided, as to whether the support or opposition being expressed is at all relevant to the issue. What other facets of Catholic liturgy are determined by popular support? Is there a precedence for the democratic determination of such things in the Catholic Church? We can certainly claim that there SHOULD be, but then that removes the argument yet another level distant from the reality. Is there just an assumption that the term “consultation” implies some kind of unanimous approval? And if that premise is taken out of the argument, we can go back and forth in a way that resembles the issue of married priests, contraception, divorced Catholics, or any number of other issues where there is a disparity between vocalized opinion and reality, creating a lively intellectual argument.
Joe, the facts as I read them do not support your assertion. I agree that other vernaculars do have problems here and there requiring updating (consecration of the chalice) & some of these problems show up in the EP’s but the new English translation brings us far closer to the other vernacular translations used in the Roman rite and no one can seriously deny it. You can see them for yourself here: http://www.misas.org/sta.tic/descarga/missa_es_en.pdf.
A few examples just from the Introductory rites include the triple “mea culpas” and the “laudamus te, glorificamus te” in the Gloria in Spanish & Italian. The US Bishops point out that “When the priest says, “El Señor esté con vosotros” (“The Lord be with you”), Spanish speakers respond, “Y con tu espíritu” (“And with your spirit”). At Communion, the response to “Éste es el Cordero de Dios…” (“Behold the Lamb of God…”) is “Señor, no soy digno de que entres en mi casa, pero una palabra tuya bastará para sanarme” (“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed”).” I believe that there are some variations in Spanish language RM’s anyway just as there are in our existing ICEL translation between the British Isles and the USA.
There is not much difference between EP 2 in English (1973) and Spanish. My point was that the claimed closeness of the new translation to Spanish does not hold for the Roman Canon,
Joe, after reflecting a lot about this issue I have come to the conclusion that “no one likes the new translation” is the most likely outcome of ANY new translation, be it more like 1998 or more like 2010, be it loved by some or hated by others. We are in many ways a divided church when it comes to preferences about worship “style” and so any translation no matter which “side” it comes closest to is going to be disliked by a large percentage. And let’s face it, as much as we would like to say “most Catholics are on MY side,” the honest among us will have to admit that neither “extreme” has a large plurality.
This moment is also singular in church history: the first translations of the vernacular could not really be compared with anything standard enough for people to form strong opinions on. One could not be blamed for thinking that “main street, largely unadorned English” was the idiom the bishops thought best for the time, and perhaps they were right, perhaps not. But now that the translation is being changed for the first time, many (critics especially from a particular viewpoint) seem to want to take advantage of this singular moment to foment unrest.
Could it be that “no one likes it” has many factors? Could it be that the largest factor is “I don’t like change, so any change is something I don’t like?” It seems to me that human nature is such that unless one sees a dire need for change, change is inconvenient at best and could even seem onerous. Add to this the propensity for projects like this to be done by committee and it is not surprising when too many cooks make the soup unsavory in some way.
I don’t like the “new” translation of the lectionary (2002) but I don’t see a reason to continue to grouse about it.
One could not be blamed for thinking that “main street, largely unadorned English” was the idiom the bishops thought best for the time, and perhaps they were right, perhaps not
———————————————-
“Unadorned English”? Doesn’t begin to describe it. The
bishops had a chance to produce a monumental work in
English after 40 years of playing with the missal and they blew it. Because they’re as much philistines
as the people for whom they’ve designed this “unadorned
English”.
No, the 1973 text is the one described as “unadorned English”! — but actually the four eucharistic prayers in that much maligned translation have a lucid and coherent and dynamic quality that is totally lacking in the constipated new translations.
“No, the 1973 text is the one described as ‘unadorned English’! — but actually the four eucharistic prayers in that much maligned translation have a lucid and coherent and dynamic quality that is totally lacking in the constipated new translations.”
Amen!!
Ben, on the contrary, most reactions to the 1998 translation by those who have examined it a very positive. And the thousands of people involved in that translation were not of the “I don’t like change camp” whereas the people behind the new translation keep saying they want to restore an older more sacral approach to liturgy. I think you won’t find anyone on this website who thinks the 1973 translations are hunky dory, especially as regard the sawdust preces; we all want change –but change you can believe in. Again, the idea that people are criticizing the new translation out of a desire to foment unrest is a pretty tawdry talking point; as Fr Ryan’s website shows, the reaction comes from all across the ideological spectrum, often from people with an impeccable record of devoted church service. Bishops have also used the “fear of change” talking point in their propaganda for the new translation. They all know that the soup is unsavory, as you so neatly put it, but they do not have the courage to insist that the People of God deserve better.
The Holy See examined 1998 and did not react positively. Of course, the average English-speaking priest and layman had little input to 1998 but I think it would be difficult to assert that most clergy or lay faithful sought the changes to the rubrics and inclusive language incorporated into the 1998 translation. I still cannot get over their idea to remove the Gloria from Ordinary Time.
I am a lay member of the Church who is now feeling very confused. There seems to be two ‘camps’ in this argument, and they differ on details of fact.
So can someone answer the following without bias or favour:
1) who was consulted about the new translation and when.
2) is it true that the text the Bishops approved following their consultation has since been significantly (i.e. beyond typographic and grammatical errors) changed?
If 2) is actually true, then how can this new text possibly be acceptable – what is the position in Cannon law?
but most of all, can someone offer me a good argument why a version that brings us into literal translation with the Latin “original” is a good thing? How can “….. and with your Spirit” be a more meaningful response than “and also with you” in either English or Latin, for a 21st Century British citizen to say?
Why would that be better than a well executed interpretation into current local idiomatic language – which I would agree, in some respects the esisting texts are not.
Just how original would that Latin have been in any case?
If I am confused, then I suspect many Laity will be in Advent – do not forget that most of the people of God do not even fully realise that this is going to happen! It has not been given much of a priority and certainly locally, there has been just one session providing information and training to which perhaps only 5% of the congregation came. Many of those 5% were very enthusiastic, and indeed from my reading of the text there are lots of ways in which it is better than the existing – but equally there are some unforgivably bad aspects – con-substantial, very long sentences in Eucharistic Prayers, that bizare “and with your spirit”.
It all just feels like a very poorly completed job had been done to us.
My real concern is that, promised an improvement, the people of God will actually be given a clumsy, wordy, obscure text to listen to / respond with.
Mr. Andrews – the anwers to all of your questions are in the upper right hand box – click on various documents and read the timeline and descriptions.
Concisely:
– consultation was limited since 1998; with changes to ICEL membership, LA and RT, Vox Clara required secrecy; Vox Clara and shift to Vatican authority to do translations (conferences only approved). VII’s SC has it the exact opposite;
– all texts have changed – white, blue, green, gray, red versions and now 2008 and 2010a and 2010b (who knows, there may be a 2010c?)
– and that doesn’t even touch on areas such as chant, antiphons, changing the wording of long sung, memorized parts of the eucharist, etc.
– PtrayTell has posted a couple of canon law rulings e.g. LA/RT are the lowest ranked executive rulings in the first place vs. almost all other liturgical regs which have higher authority; given this both a Canadian bishop (canon lawyer) and Ladislas Orsay, SJ (CUA canon lawyer) have clearly stated that the current process is not a valid process and thus this translation does not require one to abide by it
– there are plenty of documents posted that explore “literal translation”, “original latin” (whatever that is), rules in translating from one language to another, principles of ritual vs. rigid conformity to literalism, etc.
At my parish, most people are just glad to see the present translation go. They express liking the new Mass text. Not one person wants something less.
John Molnar
John,
Your fellow parishioners sound very well informed. What process did your parish use to arrive at such a solid consensus? How was this consensus measured to determine that “[n]ot one person wants something less” than the new mass text?
My parish has approximately 1200 families and I think very few have any idea of what’s in store for them this Advent. I do know for certain, however, that nobody from my parish or diocese has asked my opinion on the matter.
How did they come to this conclusion? Have they been able to study the new text? If so, have they kept up with all the changes that are happening daily?
Checking the Spanish text of the Roman Canon, I find that it reads beautifully — closer to the Latin than the English version but avoiding the clumsy phrasings of the new English translation. I suppose the Vatican will invent some more work for itself by finding the Spanish texts unsatisfactory as well.
Response to #17.
Nothing in the 1998 Missal mandates or requires removing the Gloria in Ordinary Time.
The rubric introducing the Gloria reads: “The Gloria is not used on the Sundays and weekdays of Advent and Lent.” May I ask where you got your information? The source, please. I have the actual text, as canonically approved by the conferences of bishops and submitted by them to Rome. before me as I write.
John, he may be talking about the proposal in one of the progress reports for six different options in the introductory rites, not all of which would have included the Gloria, and assumes this continued into the 1998 text.
I always understood that the Gloria is optional — at least on ordinary Sundays — am I wrong?
Fr. Joe O’Leary asked:
“I always understood that the Gloria is optional — at least on ordinary Sundays — am I wrong?”
Yes, I am afraid that you are.
Take another look at it John R. Francis. The “Gloria” is not used when the confiteor is said. In fact, the rubrics in 1998 specifically call for the opening prayer immediately following all of the five non-Gloria options in their version of the Introductory Rites. This would have meant Mass with Gloria sans penitential rite or Mass without the Gloria. I cannot imagine what would have led them to reorder our Mass like this. It cannot be called a translation in this case.
Are you talking about what ICEL proposed or what the bishops approved and sent to Rome? Two different things.
awr
The 1998 Roman Missal White Book (April 1998), as approved by the Conferences of Bishops and submitted to Rome, presented six options for the Introductory Rites of the Mass:
I. Rite of Blessing and Sprinkling of Water
II. Penitential Rite
III. Litany of Praise
IV. Kyrie
V. Gloria
VI Other Opening Rite (for example, The Presentation of the Lord; Passion Sunday)
The rubric introducing these options reads:”The opening rite may take one of the following forms.” It is not prescriptive. “May take” rather than “takes.” The inspiration for these options came from the Messbuch, confirmed by Rome for the German-speaking conferences in the late 1970s, and still in force.
The Roman rejection of this decision by the English-speaking Bishops’ Conferences could easily have been accommodated in the text. Did it, however, require the rejection of the whole text? It is true that Rome had other objections, but if respectful, fraternal dialogue with the conferences had been allowed, these too could in time have also been resolved. There was precedent for this type of trusting interchange in the ultimately successful negotiations between Rome and the Bishops’ Conferences over The Order of Christian Funeral in the late 1980s.
Indeed, one of the closing paragraphs of Cardinal Medina’s March 2002 letter to the conferences, denying the confirmatio to their separate approvals, said that there was much in the 1998 text that afforded a solid basis for a further and productive revision. Unfortunately, this possibility was not taken up by the ICEL that was restructured in late 2002-2003. The expenditure of time, resources, funds could have been avoided in a less poisoned, politicized atmosphere. And the current contentiousness as well.
It’s hardly a very edifying story. And a decade later, it looks like going on a good deal longer.
… nobis, post hoc exsilium ostende.
Joe said the beautiful French translation (which the Vatican intends to hatchet anyway)
They may have to wait. As I mentioned in another thread sometime ago, the French-speaking Bishops’ response to the changes that Rome was asking them to make was to set up a special new commission to produce the new French translation. This commission has set about its work with great deliberation, seriousness of purpose and expertise. It does not expect to complete its work before 2015 at the very earliest, and then it will take a year or two to work through the approval processes by the various francophone Bishops’ Conferences and the Congregation. So we are talking about a minimum of six or seven years before any changes would come about, and perhaps rather longer than that.
Wonderful. By then the impact of the English translation will be visible, and the French will be able to learn from those mistakes, one hopes. Who are the members of the French language commission? Is there a web site somewhere about it?
Sadly the Irish Bishops have lost the trust of all Irish people and of their own flock. Judging by the letter of Pope Benedict to the church in Ireland he too has lost faith in them for their handling of the abuse issue, even if he ignored the Vatican’s own role. They are on a total loser here; they will be pressured by the Roman curia if they give less than resounding support for the new texts and if they do support them they risk being seen as even more irrelevant (if that is possible) to their own church members. Sadly this new missal seems to be a source of division regardless of it merits or faults.
Well, I consulted a Jesuit by googling and got this answer:
Asked if Mass “counts” without Gloria or Creed, Richard G. Malloy, SJ answered: “The priest may just have forgotten to lead the community in the prayer or may have A GOOD PASTORAL REASON FOR OMITTING IT (e.g., a baptism during Mass, time constraints, etc.)”
Actually, it would be a good liturgical reason for omitting the Gloria: when it is called to be omitted, usually by a sacramental rite or a portion of it. I can’t really think of a “pastoral” reason not to sing it.
I’ve utilized the sung Gloria for Ordinary Sundays for most of the past twenty years. Occasionally, I encounter a priest who prefers to omit it. But most accede.
Clearly, it is preferable to sing it. But I will note that perhaps the Ordinary Time Sunday Mass might be well-served in some places to utilize a shorter Trinitarian hymn of praise in place of it. I felt more strongly about that 20 years ago. But singing a two-minute Gloria the people know is no burden nor a real liturgical distraction.
Let’s see how many priests insert a Confiteor or Kyrie on Wednesday this week, eh?
Asking whether “Mass counts” sans Gloria is a very different thing than asking if it is “optional”. A celebrant purposely omitting the “Gloria” is very different than a celebrant forgetting to intone this ordinary part of the Mass. I don’t see where the Gloria is omitted for a baptism, it is the credo that is omitted in that case.
It seems you are asking about licitness anyway. I don’t see where a priest celebrant has the authority to decide to omit a Mass ordinary making the celebration an illicit one should he do so. I think Vatican II had something to say about a priest modifying the rites on his own authority in SC.
GIRM possibly has some ‘grim’ sounding statements on the Gloria and Credo. But when such documents say the Creed or Gloria “is to be” recited, I take that to indicate a general rule rather than an extremely strict requirement.
That would suggest the liturgy belongs to the celebrant rather than the whole people of God or the Church. I don’t see how this can be sustained by Vatican II’s teaching on the liturgy.
This is a bit simplistic. For one thing, Our Lord had pretty strong words about religious authorities getting caught up in legalism and ritualism!
I’m a by-the-book kind of priest, and my default is to do what the community expects, not how I think they “should” have reformed the liturgy after Vatican II. But the motive in this is serving the community and its worship – not idolizing the external ritual forms. There is a difference.
We should respect priests who make pastoral changes to the rite because of their sense that it better serves the particular community. Imposing their own tastes is something different, and I’m not advocating that.
There are real dangers in thinking that everything will be better if only everyone follows the rules all the time. Missing the Spirit of Christ, for example. (Today’s second reading, anyone?) There could be real spiritual immaturity behind this attitude.
awr
The “illicit” issue only came up because of the question the Jesuit was replying to and is irrelevant to our discussion here. The fact is that some or perhaps many priests on occasion omit the Gloria or the Creed for what they consider good pastoral reasons — for instance to counter the dullness of routine that tends to attache to these prayers in a special way. My question is, can we not regard this as a legitimate exercise of pastoral tact rather than seeing it as tampering with the liturgy in a forbidden manner?
Joe: “My question is, can we not regard this as a legitimate exercise of pastoral tact rather than seeing it as tampering with the liturgy in a forbidden manner?”
Not in justice because it is not the celebrant’s role to, per Vatican II, change the liturgical texts on his own authority. It also sends the clear message that the liturgy belongs to the celebrant. It is not very pastoral and looks like clericalism.
I think the difference of interpretation here is close to one of the major fault lines in our disagreements. The text can be regarded as a set of fixed formulae, to be followed regardless (because of its representation of God’s action in our midst); or it can be seen as a set of guidelines for communication, to be refined as circumstances suggest (because of its representation of God’s word to us). Ineptitude regarding the latter should surely not be regarded as clerical arrogation.
Well, when celebrants submit their ideas about dealing with those pastoral reasons to a consensus (which does not mean unanimity, but it does mean more than a supermajority – it’s not only a quantity but a quality) of the entire community at large (not merely representatives of them, as there can be considerable selection/confirmation bias in such representation), then this idea can be considered credibly. Until that time, not necessarily. Vatican III begins in the parish, not in Rome. And it starts with celebrants not behaving like little popes, using the faithful as a rationalization to do what they think is best.
I’ve seen *way* too many priests do this*, and I think it’s old fashioned clericalism in progressive drag. It’s not genuinely progressive.
* Another factor is ministerial boredom and restiveness. The ministers (clerical and lay) repeat liturgical actions far more than the PIPs, and as a result have a *strong* tendency to project onto a majority of the PIPs. Liturgical musicians may be more sensitive to this, because they are more often forced to realize that music they’ve gotten tired of rehearsing and offering is not as boring to the PIPs as they assume it has become due to such projection. This is all the more reason to seek consensus among the PIPs rather than working from projection and rationalization. Consequently, it’s a great place to start Vatican III. Anyway, celebrants need to seek their authority to be “creative” somewhere; it’s not in the law or the documents, nor inherent in receiving Orders – if it’s not at least coming directly (rather than impliedly) from the faithful at large, it’s lost any pretense to being authorized.
Amen, Amen, Amen to Karl’s post.
When the Vibrant Parish Life Study found not only that “Masses that are prayerful, reverent and spiritually moving” was ranked at 21st in being well done, but also “Parish leadership that listens to the concerns of parishioners” was ranked at 29th out of 39 items in being well done, there is a real need for Vatican III to begin at the parish level.
Evidently, the monsignor who led the dissident charge against the translation with his petition “What if We Just Said Wait” has somewhat recanted.
Dissident is the wrong word here. As is charge. As it translation…
But where did he recant? Btw, recant is also the wrong word.
A number of blogs have noted this development with Fr. Ryan, and have cited an article in the Seattle newspaper. As I read it, it’s not so much a recanting as it is a recognition that he’s not stopping the implementation, so he has decided to obediently prepare his parish for the implementation in about nine blessedly short months.
BTW, I am quite surprised that PrayTell has not covered this news story.
It did. And then it didn’t. Don’t ask. Don’t tell. Don’t pursue.
There ain’t no story — Msgr Ryan never called for a boycott on the new trans once it was implemented. But he is still calling for people to sign the protest.
I found a stunningly lucid analysis of the liturgy debacle from Claire at Commonweal blog:
“The new translation of the liturgy is like a scientific experiment to test the hierarchy’s misuse of power. We believe that the power structure to is be blamed in the child abuse scandal, but what about other potential factors: anti-Catholicism in the media, uncomfortable relationship with law enforcement agencies in various countries, relativism, lack of familiarity of clergy with psychological questions, and the role of secular society in general? Ideally, a scientist would like to factor out those external possible causes so as to be able to focus exclusively on the internal structure of the church. For that, we need a pure problem, devoid of messy external factors. Well, the new translation of the liturgy provides a unique such opportunity!
“Designing a new, improved translation of the Missal into the vernacular: that’s a subject in which the secular media have exactly zero interest. It is of no concern to them what words we use to pray (as long as they’re not antisemitic). But it is a vital concern to us Catholics: how we pray shapes what we believe, and the Eucharist is central to our faith. Moreover, lukewarm Catholics might no care very much, but, the more one goes to Mass, the more closely one pays attention to the prayer of the Mass, the more one cares about that. For priests, who are the ones actually voicing most of the prayers, it is most important. Moreover, it is something for which clergy are trained, and there is an abundance of competent translators from Latin to English among priests. So, designing a new translation is a problem where anti-Catholicism, law enforcement agencies, technical lack of skills, and secular relativism play no role. Now, look at how that new translation came about, what the result is, and what the result could have been, and you will appreciate the full magnitude of internal dysfunction in the church.
“One could…
Claire continues: “One could write a book about the saga of the new translation. You can see rules being changed on the fly or after the fact, arbitrary edicts at random times, people grabbing the power to change wording while blatently ignoring the rules, people yielding instead of pointing out that their rights are being trampled, sham committees, secrecy, power corruption, swift punishment of people of integrity who voice concerns, and even leaks of documents on wikileaks-like web sites.
“You can see various versions of translations — 1965, 1973, 1998, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, compare the texts and realize that, regardless of your own subjective tastes in translation, all can agree that better translations have been designed along the way, so that, were it not for power struggles, the English-speaking world could have had a final text vastly superior to what is now at the publishers. Note that an enormous quantity of work has been wasted over all those years — the life project of some translators. Where, for me personally, the result becomes absurdly bad, is when the text currently under print contains grammatical mistakes that lead the readers to misunderstand the meaning (because relative clauses refer to the wrong word, for example) — the resulting meaning can be the opposite of what was intended! It is fascinating.”
Claire concludes:
“The defenders of the new translation argue from the following positions: first, ignore all intermediate texts, only showing the text we use in church currently and the text that is under print, and argue that (often) the text under print can be argued to be better in some ways. Secondly, they argue that the various misleading terms will be an occasion for catechesis, leading people to appreciate the Mass better. Indeed, some of the terms can be misleading theologically, and clarifying them will require explaining concepts that usually go without comment. (For example, that Christ died for all people: the new translation will say that Christ died “for many”, so priests will have to explain that that does not mean that Christ did not die for all…). Thirdly, they argue that no one is interested in the internal struggles that led to the new missal: people only care about the result, so we can ignore the stories of various people’s rights being trampled: by now that is water under the bridge. Fourthly, they argue that most people in the pews don’t really care what the words say anyway, so those who predict a rebellion when the new translation comes out will be disappointed. Fifth and final argument: Rome has spoken, therefore it is decided. People should stop complaining and just get on with it… All those arguments are extremely weak.
“Reading some of the episodes on a liturgy blog, I found that whole story mind-boggling. Paradoxically, it makes me a bit more sympathetic to the role of the clergy in the sexual abuse scandal: it has shown me that, even on a matter on which the church hierarchy is uniquely qualified and uniquely interested in getting things right, the whole process and result have been botched because of deep dysfunction in the power structure. To explain the sexual abuse scandal, you do not need very many evil players: as an organization, the church is hopelessly dysfunctional. In that sense, the members of the…
“In that sense, the members of the clergy and even, to some extent, the bishops (brainwashed into equating disagreement with the Vatican curia with dissent) are largely victims of the system. That dysfunction is a systemic evil that magnifies the rare individual evil and multiplies its impact, with painful consequences for all. The Church must be reformed and we lay people, who are not quite in the eye of the storm, should be the ones to force it out of its rut.”
Yep. Here we go again with the “liberals” (or whatever title you like) searching for that elusive lay uprising!
After a while this stuff gets old, just like it’s proponents.
And just like you, Michael — memento quia pulvis es.
Yessir, hope springs eternal in the liberal breast, but is that not preferable to the dour pessimism of those who watch the church disaggregate and insist that nothing can be done, nothing can be changed, that we are stuck with dysfunction, or rather that it has become our addictive fix?
Speaking of dysfunction, Joe, why can’t you see that in every possible way people like yourself have been in control of the liturgical establishment and everything else yet it’s not helping. People aren’t impressed with the way the liturgy is carried out. The Church finally got the Liturgy entirely into vernacular language and yet the average laymen’s knowledge of the faith has gone down!
Then we get the liberal response that really it all would have worked if only those conservatives and traditionalists hadn’t gotten in the way.
Well, Joe, I’m sure that hope does spring eternal in the liberal’s breast, but it’s time to wake up to reality and see that you had your chance and it didn’t work. Let some others give it a try.
Two words:
camel
straw
Joe: have you got a link to this? I can’t find it on Commonweal.
Implosion in the Vatican? Comment #18 is what Joe copied here.
Joe, thank you for posting Claire’s piece. If we had parochial, diocesan or national synods it would be the position paper to begin them with.
This is a bit simplistic. For one thing, Our Lord had pretty strong words about religious authorities getting caught up in legalism and ritualism!
I’m a by-the-book kind of priest, and my default is to do what the community expects, not how I think they “should” have reformed the liturgy after Vatican II. But the motive in this is serving the community and its worship – not idolizing the external ritual forms. There is a difference.
We should respect priests who make pastoral changes to the rite because of their sense that it better serves the particular community. Imposing their own tastes is something different, and I’m not advocating that.
There are real dangers in thinking that everything will be better if only everyone follows the rules all the time. Missing the Spirit of Christ, for example. (Today’s second reading, anyone?) There could be real spiritual immaturity behind this attitude.
awr
Unfortunately Fr Ruff, I can’t see any truly pastoral reason for skipping the Gloria other than a broken AC. I doubt that most die hard conservatives like myself would really care about a common sense move like that. My experience, however, is that priests who are so concerned about being pastoral aren’t really in touch with the needs of the people in the pews. I guarantee that, if I were in the pews and went up later to ask Fr Pastoral why he changed a part of the Mass, he would promptly lose his pastoral sense and tell me to mind my own business.
As to Fr Ruff’s last point…
It seems that you have unwittingly claimed that a propensity for following rules leads to obstructing the Spirit of Christ.
The Pharisee argument, besides being stale, does not do justice to the person to whom you are responding. Frankly, you’re insulting our intelligence.
It was already stale when Jesus Christ used it.
It’s YOU’RE, not YOUR 🙂
But seriously: “some others” did “give it a try” (I’m referring to the 2008 ICEL people and the bishops who approved their work).
Why, O why, did some nameless others step in at the last minute and take the hatchet to it? It just makes the acceptance and implementation all the more difficult . . . in my opinion.
Thank you, Michael, for pointing out the typo; I have edited my comment accordingly.
In response to #57
Michael,
Just because an argument has been used before and may seem stale doesn’t disprove the argument. The argument’s freshness or staleness has nothing to do with its validity. Furthermore, deriding the Pharisee argument as stale does not do justice to the Person who first used it. It’s probably best not to insult His intelligence.
Yes, a good pastor should engage the people in the planning of the liturgy, using their talents fully. That would make for even more freedom in disposing of the liturgy toward the needs of the faithful in these times — or inculturation. Remember that the Mass was made for man, not man for the Mass, and that like the Bible it comes alive only when it meets the creative and imaginative response of its celebrants, both people and priest.
I hope that when you’re “creatively responding” to the Bible that you don’t change the text like you do when you’re creatively responding to the Liturgy.
Christians have always creatively responded to the Bible by selective reading, or by allegorization of dull or offensive parts. Even translation involves creative response — it involves choices among the multitude of variants in the Hebrew and Greek texts (see Bart Ehrman on this), to being with. There are occasions when changing of words in the Gospel could be pastorally judicious — a case in point is Èthe Jews” in John. We don’t, I hope, want to broadcast the message that the Jews are children of Satan. You need not worry about the integrity of the biblical text — it is safely enshrined in print as is the text of the liturgy. The letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life.
Joe,
Please keep explaining your justifications for changing the texts of Scripture. The more you write, the more you prove my point.
Michael,
Indeed, this is to confuse what belongs in a homily and catechesis with what is Scripture.
If hard aspects of Scripture are elided or avoided, the process of engaging such difficulties is also elided and avoided. Makes for an immature faith. Can’t see any progressive value in that (in fact, this is great example of something that is progressive in intention but is counter-progressive in effect). It’s more like the Watchtower Society’s approach to Biblical editing…
The very concept of a lectionary is itself a creative response to scripture. The activity of omitting and including excerpts from scripture into the liturgy is more than that. It is also an exercise in interpretation. For example, more than 100 verses from a total of over 120 from the prophet Amos are never heard over the course of the three year cycle. These include the phrases, ‘I hate, I scorn your festivals. I take no pleasure in your solemn assemblies. Spare me the din of your chanting.’ (5.21-23.)
Similarly, perhaps the decision by the GILH, (GRIM’s sister), to prohibit absolutely the use of Psalm 58 in the liturgy of the church, has contributed to the reticence of Christians to rage against unjust ecclesiastical juridical authority since VII and indirectly colluded in the abuse crisis. If that is so, it surely is now the time to restore Psalm 58, to help the faithful voice their indignation at what has happened in the case of the missal, in terms both of the process and the product.
‘Do you truly speak justice, you who hold divine power?… No…..They are heedless as the adder that turns a deaf ear. ‘(Ps. 58.2, 5)
Amos is covered pretty extensively in the cursus of the 13th Week of Ordinary TIme, Cycle II. Not everything can fit into the Sunday cycles…it’s not a conspiracy.
Michael, it is not only women readers who object to the use of exclusive language.
The answer to Daniel McKernan’s point is to be found in GIRM 20:
Because, however, the celebration of the Eucharist, like the entire Liturgy, is carried out through perceptible signs that nourish, strengthen, and express faith, the utmost care must be taken to choose and to arrange [my emphasis] those forms and elements set forth by the Church that, in view of the circumstances of the people and the place, will more effectively foster active and full participation and more properly respond to the spiritual needs of the faithful.
What this is saying is that if you go through the Mass on a rubricist autopilot you are actually not doing your job properly. It takes thought and effort and “the utmost care” to discern the spiritual needs of the faithful, which may change from one celebration to the next, and to make those selections accordingly.
In this context, it’s worth remembering SC 11: “Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration.”
GIRM continues (para 21):
This Instruction aims both to offer general guidelines for properly arranging the Celebration of the Eucharist and to set forth rules for ordering the various forms of celebration.
What is required, therefore, is the ability to discern between what is a general guideline and what is a rule. This is something which rubricists have a great deal of trouble with. Pastoral liturgists, however, have nothing to fear here.
It is to be noted that these two paragraphs have been in GIRM since 1969 and we have not yet really begun to observe them.
Thanks, Paul….it gets back to Gabe Huck’s thesis that SC #14 is where the failure began…..insufficient and inadequate liturgical training and experience of pastoral and clerical leadership starting in the seminary. How many presiders would even understand what you have just posted – or do they read the black and do the red?
I rest my case – see subsequent posts below which only codify the “read the black and do the red” as if liturgy or even ritual is never local; must be in the GIRM or else; etc., etc.
It really does start with your ecclesiology and how you live “lex orandi; lex credendi” Always thought that liturgy were actions (verbs); the sacraments were relational expressing faith which at its core is not a set of rules but “right relationship” as Paul said well in the second reading yesterday.
Paul,
Nothing you’ve produced here gives the celebrant the authority to omit ordinary parts of the Mass. He can choose whether or not to use incense, ring the sacring bells, or sing the propers but that is not what we were discussing.
Glad to see GIRM is not so grim as it’s paainted — of course it dates from 1969 when the Church was full of the pastoral radiance of Vatican II.
Be sure to continue reading paragraphs 23 & 24 as well..
23. Moreover, in order that such a celebration may correspond more fully to the prescriptions and spirit of the Sacred Liturgy, and also in order to increase its pastoral effectiveness, certain accommodations and adaptations are specified in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass.
24. These adaptations consist for the most part in the choice of certain rites or texts, that is, of the chants, readings, prayers, explanations, and gestures that may respond better to the needs, preparation, and culture of the participants and that are entrusted to the priest celebrant. Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.
Seems to me that when there are options to “choose and arrange” they will be specified in the GIRM, such as choosing which form of the Penitential Rite to use. I believe skipping the Gloria on a Sunday outside Advent or Lent constitutes removing something from the Mass, which very clearly goes against the letter and spirit of the GIRM.
Correct. The option to choose and arrange is not some sort of Primary Norm to which the other norms bow in deference. It’s not a valid basis for the purpose to which some would put it.
Well, Liam, if that is how you opt to choose and arrange these norms, that is okay with me. And if someone else opts to make the priest’s choosing and arranging the Primary norm, I am not sure I could say he is wrong.
Why do we send them to seminary for so many years if they are not able to make decisions like this? They should learn to choose the Gloria when possible, but to portray the law in such a binding way just seems against the grain of a Catholicism that values not just Scripture, but Tradition as well. It is not just the written rubrics, but the priest’s discretion as well that leads us to sing of God’s glory.
Jim
The priest’s “discretion” is not what leads the PIPs to sing God’s glory anymore than the Pope’s “discretion” does so.
A seminary education is not a basis for this “discretion”. That is an invention.
I don’t portray the law in a binding a way as to argue against legalism that comes in the form of rationalizations of this sort. It is a legalism, believe it or not, to engage in this way of thinking (it’s a way of cherry-picking legal texts to justify doing thing the way we think best).
In regards to the Gloria:
The GIRM reads that the Gloria “is sung or said on Sundays outside Advent and Lent….” The present indicative is a strong command in the law; therefore, as I read it, the use of the Gloria in the current (and future) Missal is not “optional” (in the same sense as it was proposed in the 1998 version – one choice among others).
As noted above, when options are available they are identified as such.
The question of what is to be done when other rites are appended to the beginning of Mass is a different question. For example, when baptism is celebrated in the context of Mass, the Rite of Reception is used and the usual greeting and act of penitence are omitted. Each rite provides the proper way of combining that rite with Mass. That is different than saying that the Gloria is simply “optional.”
From dotCommonweal on the use of “memes” which we are all prone to:
examples – “read the black; do the red”; reform of the reform; hermeneutic of continuity; latin is more sacral; etc.
“A meme is a pre-packaged cultural snippet that seems very clear and self contained. It looks black and white and it makes the other side look vicious, greedy, and stupid. Its function is to translate a complex situation into a pseudo-moral situation for the purposes of political manipulation. Both the right and the left use them and they are particularly common in religious discussions. They have become especially popular with the rise of the internet because they are so short that they can even be tweeted and they seem so complete that a person who uses them can sound like he knows what he is talking about. But they are a scourge that makes us ever more stupid every time we use them.”
Could anyone give me a good pastoral reason why to ever omit the Gloria when it’s called for, given…
– It has been used in worship from at least the third century
– It can be sung straight through easily in under two and a half minutes
– The familiarity with the text lends itself to full participation from memory
– There are plenty of musical settings, not to mention the richness of the words, so it’s hard to imagine it becoming mindless routine
– It’s one of the four times during the Mass where the singing of the entire assembly together is the only ritual action (Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster)
…again, seems like if you want to foster active participation, this would not be something to cut
Is there something I’m missing? Why are priests apt to cut the Gloria, but not the homily or the Sanctus for instance? Something they learned in seminary? Really, I’d like to know, because it happens all the time and I truly don’t get it.
–
Jeff –
Maybe I’m not the one to ask, since I believe in following what’s in the book, and I don’t believe in confusing or irritating people by doing my thing, or an unexpected thing. I agree with your reasons for including the Gloria (although the history of it coming into the Eucharistic liturgy for every Sunday, even when it’s ‘just’ a priest and not a bishop, is a bit more complicated). However, your reasons have to do with the value of the Gloria in se. Pastoral reasons would have to do with something else: the particularities of a given community.
Again, so I’m not misunderstood: I’m not advocating what follows. Rather, I am trying to understand how other priests might decide, on pastoral grounds, not to follow the rubrics prescribing the Gloria.
Suppose I’m asked to celebrate for a community which hasn’t been singing the Gloria on Sundays of Ordinary time for the past 35 years. This could be a parish, or a spiritual renewal movement, or a religious community, or who knows what. Suppose this community is in uproar because the Bishop has just demanded that they stop lay preaching after the Gospel. Feelings are running high, including hurt feelings. And now I’m their celebrant, and I will be doing the canonically-approved homily.
A half hour before Mass I see the worship leaflet, and there is no Gloria included. Do I as visiting priest demand it be included? Will it be an act of glorious praise for these people? Do we recite it since no music is prepared? Would including it add to the hurt because Fr. Ruff is a legalist just like the Bishop who prohibited lay preaching?
I’ve never been in this hypothetical situation. Were I, I could see why I would not, 30 minutes before Mass, ask this community to follow the Church’s rules. I don’t like their practice, I don’t agree with it, it doesn’t fit my understanding of liturgy. But this isn’t the time to argue the point.
awr
I appreciate your thoughtful response, and in the rare and difficult situation you outline, I can see why this might be the correct decision. However it is my experience in various settings that the Gloria is omitted for self-proclaimed “pastoral reasons” that include, as mentioned in some comments above, the time it takes to sing the Gloria, or the fact that it is repeated each weekend and somehow becomes boring (I guess we should skip the Lord’s Prayer once and again to keep things fresh). I’ve been around the block a few times…I’ve never experienced a priest omit the Gloria for as thoughtful a reason as you present, but way too many times have had a priest omit the Gloria for the reasons I listed. One morning Mass on the feast of the Assumption the celebrant asked to have the Gloria recited instead of sung because the folks in the pew “needed to get to work on time.” When I pointed out that 30-60 seconds extra wouldn’t really make all that much a difference, and that our parishioners expected to sing the Gloria on such a major feast day, I didn’t get a positive response. His concerns didn’t prohibit him from giving a fairly unprepared 10 minute long homily, among other asides during various parts of the celebration. I venture to say this is the more common experience.
Fr Ruff, I repeat my earlier point which directly responds to your theoretical example and is similar to the example given by Jeff Rice. Here is the quote from my previous post:
“My experience, however, is that priests who are so concerned about being pastoral aren’t really in touch with the needs of the people in the pews. I guarantee that, if I were in the pews and went up later to ask Fr Pastoral why he changed a part of the Mass, he would promptly lose his pastoral sense and tell me to mind my own business.”
I’ve certainly seen priests behave that way even with their liturgical ministers who ask questions. And those folks tend to be sympathetic to the overall disposition of the priests in question (because the ones who are not tend not to be chosen and/or tend to self-select out of trying to work with such prriests).
We’re not talking hard facts of an acute, temporary situation in this thread, but generalities. The realm of rationalizations, not reasons.
I can see why the celebrant facing this hypothetical might not chant the Gloria, he may even decide not to compel the good sisters recite it either, but he should still recite it himself. I wonder how may sisters might even appreciate hearing the Gloria after being prevented from doing so for long periods of time by the liturgical planners in her convent. Just as the liturgy does not belong to the celebrant, it does not belong to the convent’s superior either. I think it is an error to consider this to be only a matter of following “Church rules” as you’ve written here, it is about providing the people the liturgy of the Church, something that belongs to the whole Church, not any one community. It is about preventing believers from being able to participate actively in the liturgy by suppressing portions of it. It is a justice issue.
I have thought for many years that it is precisely religious women who have suffered most due to misapplications of the liturgical renewal. Priest celebrants must realize that they are obligated to celebrate the full liturgy and no one should ever
expect that they would do otherwise.
Jeff, I’m also not the one to ask because my own practice is to do it every Ordinary Sunday. But I will tell you what I’ve heard from the clergy.
Some object to “too much music” for two reasons. If people sing the entrance, why another “full” song? They might know the pedigree of the Gloria not being an “ordinary” Sunday practice.
Or they may just object to music, period. Especially if the people are singing just the refrain or none of it at all.
My last pastor fell into the former category. The associate “recited” when he presided. I suggested we just sing it all the time. It didn’t get resolved till the new pastor came. It was less a matter of good liturgy and more a turf war between younger priest and older priest.
You asked why not the homily or the Sanctus? Because these are more important than the Gloria by function and by their placement in the Mass. Musicians seem to regard KyrieGloriaCredoSanctusAgnusDei as one unit of equal subsections. The psalm, alleluia, mysterium fidei, and Great Amen are all more important to the liturgy than the Gloria. We might well ask why some church musicians emphasize less important elements to the exclusion of parts from the very core of the liturgy.
“The familiarity with the text lends itself to full participation from memory”
Yes! This is one of the principal arguments against changing the people’s part of the mass.
Are you saying changing the people’s parts once in 40 years is too often? Even though it is an improvement?
The dire state of our liturgy is blamed on “liberals” who propagated bad preaching, shoddy music, a flat text. But “liberals” produced the 1998 texts, which the Vatican dumped — how does this fit the picture? As a liberal I flee to the Anglican Church in search of elevated language and music and excellent preaching.
Father O—As a liberal I flee to the Anglican Church in search of elevated language and music and excellent preaching.—-
have you left us, Father?
I think people’s rage against our drab liturgies has led them to put their eggs in the basket of the new translation, not realizing that this new translation is just more of the same shoddy Schlamperei. Their rage will redouble when they realize they’ve been conned.
And so many Anglicans have recently flown to Rome. Ironic.
I think bragging about those who “see the light” and turn RCC from another Christian tradition is tacky.
Especially when the fact is that, at least in the U.S., many, many more RC priests have turned Episcopal than have come the other direction.
awr
I don’t recall saying anything about the “light” but Fr. Joe did say something about the music, language, and preaching
being better in Anglican use parishes.
Please explain what you mean when you say: “I think bragging about those who ‘see the light’ and turn RCC from another Christian tradition is tacky.”
The numbers in Ireland , of lay faithful and clergy, doing so are unprecedented. The Church of Ireland journal Search carried an article on this phenomenon in its Winter 2010 edition. It was given editorial mentio. See below.
I have tried to access the stats through Gerard Flynn’s links March 8th 4.07am in response to this post, but they do not give me anything more than a “front page.”
Are these details available elsewhere?
Are you saying changing the people’s parts once in 40 years is too often? Even though it is an improvement?
It would have to be a great improvement, and obviously so, which vc2010 is not.
Preferably, I would introduce changes as a new option and see how well they are received for some years before requiring something new.
That is in addition to the process of change should follow the established procedures which VC2010 did not.
Jeff Rice said Could anyone give me a good pastoral reason why to ever omit the Gloria when it’s called for, given…
– It has been used in worship from at least the third century
The last sentence is one of the memes that Bill was talking about.
Originally the Gloria was only used once a year, at Christmas. From there its use gradually spread to every Sunday. That’s rather different from Jeff’s implication that it has been a normative component of the Mass since the 3rd century.
My sentence is an example of a fact, not a meme. I did not imply anything, but you are assuming a great deal. My point is that the Gloria is an element that has very old origins in Christian worship, in both Eastern and Western traditions. Your comment is an example of reading into something that isn’t there. And, Fr. Anthony’s rare but thoughtful scenario aside, no one seems to be able to give a rationale to explain why the Gloria is omitted so frequently that meets the GIRM’s qualification for rearranging elements of the Mass
Because it’s just a rationalization after all.
Admitting I don’t get “out” much, my own sense is that the Gloria is omitted less often than it is recited.
American pragmatism is at work all too often. Why sing two substantial pieces in the introductory rites when you can get by with one? That’s the question I’ve heard.
For the record, I don’t think omitting the Gloria falls under the qualification of the GIRM.
The history of the Gloria seems rather complicated.
It arose in the East in Greek in the fourth century or earlier, and became part of morning prayer in the Byzantine tradition. So this is an important prayer with a history, but so is the Phos Hilarion (O Gladsome Light) which became part of Vespers in the Byzantine tradition but not the Roman tradition.
Apparently it came into the Latin Mass at Rome initially on Christmas as the transition from the Office to Mass, it spread only slowly to other feasts, and was reserved to bishops until the eleventh century!
Christine Mohrmann Liturgical Latin: Its Origins and Character, 1957 maintains that the Gloria, the TeDeum and the Exultet are all strong contrasts to the sobriety of liturgical Latin and therefore work by way of contrast to the normal. Which seems to argue against too frequent use.
One could argue that the Gloria spread too far into all the weekday feasts and therefore some retrenchment was desirable but hardly the retrenchment to Christmas, Easter and Pentecost that has occurred in one local parish! That is a little too infrequent.
We need a sung Gloria during Ordinary Time because we need to make all Ordinary Sundays far more festive. Read the encyclical Dies Domini; The Lord’s Day is the original festive day; the liturgical year is a later development.
We have given the Advent-Christmas and Lent Easter cycles too much emphasis over Ordinary Time Sundays. The attendance data from Protestant churches with liturgical cycles shows they have less average attendance than the evangelical churches that have a festive celebration every Lord’s Day instead of a liturgical year cycle.
https://praytell.blog/index.php/2010/07/19/the-liturgical-year-and-average-church-attendance/
My personal solution to the frequent non use of the Gloria at Mass is to use it during morning prayer as in the Byzantine tradition.
Only comments with a full name will be approved.
I don’t recall saying anything about the “light” but Fr. Joe did say something about the music, language, and preaching
being better in Anglican use parishes.
Not Anglican Use, Anglican. As in the Church of Ireland. Yes, in Ireland, former Roman Catholics are coming over in larger numbers–the traffic ALWAYS goes both ways, pace McKernan.
Cardinal Sean Brady, president of the Irish Episcopal Conference, has announced that the revised Roman Missal will be introduced in Ireland on 27 November, the First Sunday of Advent.
So what, if anything, can the PBI do?
So what, if anything, can the PBI do? Apart from remaining dumb?
which is the best blackberry…
[…]Statement Expected from Ireland’s Bishops « PrayTellBlog[…]…
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.