This is fascinating. Two presentations on the new translation. Two very different reports of the reactions of those in attendance. And each is, in a real way, true.
“Faithful assured New Roman Missal will only add ‘Sacred Spice’” in the Detroit Examiner says this about a recent presentation:
Questions flew at Fr. Fragomeni one by one as it became clear that the faithful are suspicious and against change for change’s sake. “Are we undoing the church and liturgical reform…?…closing the window on Vatican II…?… the new language hints at Roman lawyering… why?… is it more exclusive rather than inclusive…?…how will the changes bring people back to the church…?… is there any spiritual advantage…?… is this only being imposed in the U.S….?… do we have to do this…?…what is the cost…?…and in the vernacular, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”
“Priest who helped revise missal to give workshops” in the Catholic Transcript of Hartfort CT archdiocese quotes Msgr. Jim Moroney:
I have never finished a day with priests in which there were more than one or two people at the most who … had anything but enthusiasm for the implementation. … I suspect that a couple of weeks after this goes into effect, most people will have forgotten the old translation.
* * * * *
I will permit myself to correct one small misstatement of Msgr. Moroney. He claims that “involved in the translation at every stage have been musicians, scholars of the English language, and pastors and Latinists and theologians and Biblicists.” No musician from ICEL was involved in the final stage when Vox Clara and the Congregation for Divine Worship made thousands and thousands of changes to the text submitted by the bishops’ conferences. And judging by some of the unfortunate changes with their impossible accent patterns, e.g., in the Preface cadences, I am confident in saying no musician was consulted who understands how the preface tone works. Oh well.