Fr. William O’Malley, SJ, in U.S. Catholic: “Poorly worded: Can we have a Mass that speaks to real people?“
Poorly worded: Can we have a Mass that speaks to real people?
Comments
78 responses to “Poorly worded: Can we have a Mass that speaks to real people?”
-
Most of the article seemed based on the author’s presumption that his view is the view of “the people” – yet he provided no sort of back-up for that premise. The excursion into his own rendering of the Eucharistic Prayer seemed to reinforce the perspective that the new translation is a failure mostly because it doesn’t do things the way he would or has done.
The critique that the new translation wasn’t test-marketed in the same way a marketing company would a new product – to see which tastes were most gratified, which needs [real or imagined] were satisfied – reduces the liturgy to a product that is consumed.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with him, and I certainly agree that a broader consultation and some initial field testing would have been a good idea. (At the Catholic Academy meeting a couple years back it was admitted that chanting the collects wasn’t done as part of the selection process for final translation.)
I am seeing in this article the US tendency [I don’t know if it’s exclusive to the US, only that I’ve witnessed it in action at very nearly every presentation I’ve done on the new translation, which have all been in the US] to universalize one’s own tastes/opinions/desires/actions in order to make them true; and to drive most decisions by the parameters of personal tastes or experience. Another [US] fallacy: that the group/majority will always be able to determine what is best or right or true.-
Another [US] fallacy: that the group/majority will always be able to determine what is best or right or true.
————————————————–IIndeed a fallacy, but not as great a fallacy as the belief an elite corps of specialists could do much better when their expertise is undermined and thrown to the winds. Trumped by the exercise of authority wrapped in incompetence. -
Another [US] fallacy: that the group/majority will always be able to determine what is best or right or true.
————————————————–
Indeed a fallacy, but not as great a fallacy as the belief an elite corps of specialists could do much better when their expertise is undermined and thrown to the winds. Trumped by the exercise of authority wrapped in incompetence.
-
-
Fr. O’Malley says: “It would be an unusual step, but all authorities would have to do is just ask the people: “Does this bring you and God closer? Does it really make you feel part of a bigger life with the people who share this space and time today?”
Perhaps this, from a REAL marketing genius, Steve Jobs, might enlighten Fr. O’Malley:
“It’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”
Come November 27, the faithful will begin to have what many didn’t know they wanted: a sound, faithful, corrected translation of the Mass.
-
Maybe.
-
From my personal experience of it since September, I can say that I did not want this translation. It sounds ugly, and has so far failed to bring me any closer to God.
-
As another who has had this “corrected” translation foisted upon him, without consultation, without even proper Episcopal approval, I agree wholeheartedly with Margret. The new words are clumsy, lumpy and distract from the worship experience. They, quite simply, do the exact opposite of what we are told they do.
Is the liturgy supposed to call to my heart, or to have complex legal arguments with my intellect?
Personally, I prefer the former, as I get all I want of the latter in my day job.
-
Perhaps a more open heart would be helpful?
-
“Perhaps a more open heart would be helpful?”
By the official translaters who foisted this on us?
-
Holy Mass is objective reality. The ontological and metaphysical reality of the Mass absolutely supersedes our approval, disapproval, or feelings. Mass isn’t just something that bears its own significance but is otherwise on equal footing with other human intellectual constructs. Mass is. At Mass, the Creator enters into his created order for the forgiveness of sins and the sustaining grace of humanity. This act cannot be reduced to mere sentiment, or “how I feel” statements.
One of the benefits of a sacral language is its resilience to feelings and subjectivity. Texts in sacral languages are codified by tradition and hallowed by the continual celebration of the Church outside of constantly shifting anthropological and cultural mores. Translations please no one, because translation introduces a subjectivity to liturgy that is necessarily personal and divisive.
I am not an opponent of vernacularization in general. However, those who are proponents of complete and radical vernacularization of the Mass sometimes conflate the philosophical identity of the Mass with subjectivity. This is the holding pattern we Catholics have been trapped in for almost 50 years.
-
-
“The faithful”?” Does that mean that the people who don’t want the new missal are the unfaithful? In some eyes, probably so.
But in the minds of many Catholics, especially those under the age of 50, come November 27, many will have what they neither wanted nor even knew was coming: an awkwardly worded, poorly structured, strange sounding translation of the Mass, that they will be told “they’ll get used to”.
Getting used to something, especially when it is forced upon you, and wanting or liking it, are two different things. When someone close to a person dies, most people don’t like it, but they have no choice but to get used to it. The church is hoping that we’ll believe that we have no choice but to get used to it.
-
I may stretch the Steve Jobs parallel to the breaking point, but at the launch of the new iPhone 4S, all the critics and tech intelligentsia labeled it a failure and a disappointment. But when the thing went on sale, it broke all the previous records for a launch of any Apple gadget. Wouldn’t it be a shame if all the experts on this blog were proved wrong?!
-
“Wouldn’t it be a shame if all the experts on this blog were proved wrong?!”
Not at all. If I may presume to call myself one of these experts, I sincerely hope I am wrong about these translations, and that they will work well, and not sound like doggerel. If I’m wrong, the People of God will be well served, and that’s what counts.
On the other hand, if I’m right, THAT will be a shame. I’ll derive no satisfaction from being able to say “I told you so” to anyone.
FWIW, my prediction about the response from the pews is relative indifference. They’ll adjust to the odd words they have to say, ignore the more badly botched words the presider says, and perhaps shrug and wonder how this silliness happened.
-
-
-
So the woman in the choir was being finicky when she wanted him to pray the prayers as written, but he wasn’t being finicky when he ” simply could not use the ugly phrase ‘our spiritual drink'”? This seems to be simply the liberal version of the old clerical game of “father knows best.”
-
+1
-
-
I am a ‘people’. This mass speaks to me. (The one we have turns me utterly off!)
It is curious that those who are screeching that there was no consultation or democratic process involved with the new translation seem to forget that the vapid equivalency one with which we are now burdened was also imposed, mercilessly, without consultation. Why are they not complaining about IT? (There has never in history been a liturgy that was formed by the sort of marketing methods some here would seem to want. Let us hope that there never will be!)
-
MJO – thanks as always for your thoughtful comments. I have a few reactions.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. If the imposition of the current liturgy was too top-down and non-consultative, that’s not a good rationale for the coming top-down imposition.
Some people didn’t like the reforms in the 60s and 70s. I get that. But most of the people did by far. I don’t like top-down imposition, then or now, but at least then the authorities were imposing something most people accepted joyfully. That isn’t the case this time.
I don’t think we’re talking about ‘marketing methods.” We’re talking about the development of some hybrid model of governance that gives final authority to the hierarchy but also has open, transparent consultation involving the whole church, with some sharing of power and authority with lower clergy and laity. Since the current system clearly isn’t working – there’s too much hurt, and too little buy-in from key players (eg parish priests) – eventually we’ll have to have a structural reform.
If done right, consultation and accountability can increase the quality of the final product. I know no one who claims that the coming translation of the Roman Missal is at the aesthetic level of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer from — gasp! horrors! — the rather liberal Episcopal Church. I know no serious expert who thinks that the coming translation has the aesthetic quality of the ICEL 1997/1998 translation.
Pax,
awr
-
Many thanks, Fr Ruff, for you temperate observations. I do appreciate them and the spirit in which they were offered.
Also, while I disagree that the new translation is the disaster that some insistently harp that it is, I do greatly respect anyone such as yourself who disassociates himself from a project (a plum of a project, at that) over a matter of conscientious principle.If you should have time, would you e-mail me at mjacksonosborn@sbcglobal.net?
I am very conservative and high, liturgically and musically; at the same time I would not at all get along with any variety of arch-conservative unltamontanists- no more than I would with any sort of ‘liberal’, chic, ‘contemporary’-minded denizens of trendy simplicity and improvisation.
Objections to the transaltion seem to fall into one of several categories. Some categories are purely emotional and include people who love what they were reared on and are genuinely hurt that they are going to lose it. Other categories are characteristed by rebellion and disobedience due to not wishing to find themselves praying, proclaiming, and reading langauge that is somewhat more elevated than that with which they would be comfortable normally. Others are aghast at the failure to fashion a translational language that is meet for its sacred purposes; disappointed that we might seem to have gotten a Potemkin translation rather than the artfully crafted masterpiece which was deserved . Others are thrilled with it, though many of them are not competent to assess and make judgement on those serious flaws that it does have.
The positive aspect of this group is that they are glad, finally, to be getting free from the artless, vapid, non-equivalency that we have. This, indeed, is an event worthy of a Te Deum.
I share sincerely the feelings of all these parties, though I lean most to the last. (Short continuation below –
The ones whom I find most frightening, though, astonishingly irreverent, really, are the ‘get out the white out’ brigade, the ‘I’m going to say whatever words I wish rather than this awful construction’ coterie, the ‘I can’t do this convincingly by only spending 5 minutes with it’ team, and the general ‘I don’t like it at all and everybody I’m around is going to know it, so it doesn’t have a chance if I have anything to say about it’ regiment. Unlike the groups above, these later are destructive in intent and are a discredit to their vocation and orders. -
To claim that those of us who say we are going to refuse to use the new translation are “destructive in intent” is of course, from your point of view. Since I’m in agreement with them, I view holding that position as being traditional and conservative – the reason being that we simply wish to retain the tradition of using the only mass that we have ever known, and do not see the need for the translation. We see the beauty in the simplicity of the current translation or even the slight corrections of the 1998 translation.
Many people will reply that they hope people holding this type of view will eventually see the light and come back to the church. The problem is that we aren’t leaving, the church by making this drastic change is leaving us. We are not automatons. Changes have to make sense. Simply taking the position that people have to do it because the church says it, doesn’t cut it anymore.
So, yes, I pray to God every day that the new missal implementation is an utter failure, that it causes major upheaval in the church and that the church is forced to revoke it. When the hierarchy are not listening, the people have no choice but to dig in their heels, and listening does not mean simply explaining why the changes are being made, it means potentially compromising, which the hierarchy is in no mentality to do. Allow the current translation to exist alongside the new translation, and then the people who wish to go to masses using the new translation can do so while those who appreciate the current translation, which has been a valid liturgy for 40 years, can also continue to go to that liturgy.
If people truly prefer the new translation it will be shown in the attendance. Of course, the issue of which translation the people prefer seems to not be part of the equation.
-
-
I’m with Fr. Anthony here. Having read some of the ICEL 1997/98 translation, I can see that it is vastly superior, on an aesthetic level, to the 2010 missal. Given that the ’98 version was supposed to address the shortcomings of the ’70 version, what’s the problem with that? It is proclaimable, it is written in actual vernacular English and lacks the “We’re much cleverer than you” attitude that seeps through the 2010 words.
I am degree-educated and enjoy intellectual argument and discourse and yet I find the new Mass to be quite inaccessible. There is the occasional gem, a gleaming piece of imagery that takes my breath away, yes. Sadly these are invariably followed by a 200-word sentence that leaves priest and people gasping.
-
-
I frequently encounter priests who ad lib the presidential texts to a greater or lesser degree. Making adjustments to texts proper to the day, while not ideal, is not terribly disruptive. But those who liberally adapt the ordinary, especially the dialogs, can wreck havoc with people’s participation in the Mass.
If a priest changes the liturgical greeting to something like, “My brothers and sisters, the Lord IS with every one of you,” then the rhythm is thrown off and people genuinely don’t know how to respond. I recently encountered this situation with a guest presider, then he complained that “people in this parish don’t participate!” I bet he finds that often!
-
Yes. And thereby turning an invocation into a statement of fact, which is a much lesser thing. I understand the rationalization of it, as a matter of substance and theoretical translation, and I am underwhelmed. It says more about the presider than anything else, and not good…
-
-
I am struck that I have had absolutely no major angst from anyone in my congregation due to the change in their parts which we implemented the first Sunday of September after about three years of catechesis and experimentation. I think the greatest discomfort comes from the fact that they have to read the words of the Gloria when sung and the Credo. They are more tied to a worship resource in other words as am I. Having it memorized is more comfortable, but that will come with time and in fact is already occurring for them and me! We’ve implemented the priest’s parts too–I don’t think anyone has noticed since we don’t provide the priestly prayers in our worship resources in the pew. Not one person has made any comment on the new Eucharistic prayers which they have in the pews. We are a very participative congregation when it comes to singing and speaking the parts of the Mass and my parish is not reticent about telling me their feelings especially if negative.
I think what others have said above about all the improvisation most laity have experienced from many priests and I don’t think there is a Catholic out there that hasn’t experienced it from a priest somewhere along the line, that they will take what comes and with a grain of salt. So the new translation even with its minor flaws just as the older one which has flaws galore, is no big deal to them, they’ve been there and done that whether official or improvised and seem to accept it either way.-
Fr Allen, you state:
I have had absolutely no major angst from anyone …after about three years of catechesis and experimentation.
It took Three Years!!!
Doesn’t square with Sacrosanctum Concilium.
From the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, Vatican II:
34. The 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.-
Sorry for the glitch on my computer.
To continue, my point is not to criticize Fr Allen but rather point out
that if this translation takes so much catechesis by
everyone then it violates # 34 in the constitution
on sacred liturgy and should be considered not legal. -
Dale, the catechesis was more about “why the change” than about the change. The most difficult aspect of the new translation in implementation is “And with your spirit” not because of antipathy but because “and also with you” is ingrained in all of us and done by rote habit. The other changes are less problematic from the rote habit point of view. Most Catholics today and even those from the 1960’s didn’t know that the Vatican allowed an equivalency method of translating the Post-Vatican II Mass in Latin to English in the 1960’s (heck I didn’t know until about 10 years ago, or had forgotten) and that there has been a process of revising the English since the late 1980’s and that in 1998 the game was changed to a literal translation of the post-Vatican II Mass into English. I could stir up anti-authority sentiments in some of my parishioners by focusing on decision making issues in the Catholic Church which are present at every level of Catholic life from Rome, to the nation, to the diocese and to the parish. But rather I chose to focus on the why of the translation. My congregation is singing the new Gloria with gusto, saying it at daily Mass when required with no problem and the Credo is no problem. I think everyone by now knows what consubstantial means (although I’m not quite sure they really understood “One in Being” all these years). They understand incarnate. These are simple to teach. Even our first graders now know the definition of these two words. I do have people asking for the EF Mass every Sunday (we only do it once a month on Sunday and at a special time) but no one is asking for a special OF Mass in the old translation. Now if that happens I’ll let you know.
-
Whether it was about “why the change” or training or any other catechesis it takes time, more time than most pastors have. Regardless, #34 states that it shouldn’t require much explanation.
I do not pretend to be an attorney or scholar but it violates #34. It is valid of course but still illegal in my humble opinion. -
Dale
You seem to be thinking of SC as if it were a constitution in the American sense: a fundamental law that is superior to statutes enacted thereunder. That’s not how Roman law works; SC is not that kind of constitution.
-
Karl, you know I get tired when conservatives and trads throw the proverbial “that’s not what the Vatican II documents state” or “have you actually read the documents?” The answer is Yes I have (not that I am accusing you of this). One cannot have it both ways.
As far as the importance of Sacrosanctum Concillium from a church council I completely disagree with you on this!
If we don’t ascribe to what the documents state then what are they good for.
-
Dale
Unfortunately, that’s not how SC operates as a legal document within its legal system. While I am actually sympathetic to your point (I am a liturgical progressive, shall we say), what you complain of is not “illegal” within that legal system, and asserting it is tends to weaken the position due to its inaccuracy.
-
Dr. Dale, SC 34 specifically says that the rites “should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.” You appear to be saying that Fr. Allan, in taking three years to prepare his community for the new translation, has violated this norm.
This norm is addressing the liturgical reform, the revision to the ritual books that eventually produced the Pauline missal. It does not appear (to me) to apply to the translation of Latin texts into vernaculars. I think there’s a big difference between saying “the rite should not require much explanation” and “the reasons for such-and-such reform should not require much explanation”.
Do we know the course of catechesis Fr. Allan used? Did he spend weeks upon weeks on “And with your spirit”, or did he spend a week on a prayer, because people didn’t have the time to hear about all the changes all at once?
And, slightly tangentially, there’s been discussion at PTB every few months about “ascrib[ing] to what the documents state”, specifically in regard to SC 54.2 (the decree which mentions the equipping of the faithful to say or sing parts of the Mass in Latin).
-
Jeffrey, I believe that the intent of the council is clearly listed in the S.C. The purpose of this great reform is clearly stated. It wasn’t reform in 1964 and after that anything goes. It clearly states that anything that is not in compliance with it is to be discarded.
Furthermore, S.C. is violated not only by the catechesis issue but also by “who” is charged with this, ie the bishops and not some curial appointments who function in secrecy without any consultation. I believe Fr. Ruff has addressed this part thoroughly.
As far as SC goes I will not diminish it or as some (not you) are attempting to roll it back.ps
SC 54 will come up sometime I’m sure and I will put my 2 cents in. -
Jeff, you stated “You appear to be saying that Fr. Allan, in taking three years to prepare his community for the new translation, has violated this norm.”
No, I think you misunderstood, that is not my intention. I think I stated above that I’m not criticizing him but rather a cumbersome translation which takes lots of catechesis violates #34. It would be great if everyone was catechised more, there is so much disinformation out there it’s terrible. -
Yes, let me know… you might be surprised 🙂
-
-
“Not one person has made any comment on the new Eucharistic Prayers ….” Not even a positive comment? They haven’t even noticed a difference?
Or, do I misunderstand? You are not yet using, under your parochial indult, the prayers said by the priest? The people have them only in a worship aid in the pews?
And is it true that some pastors in your Province are delaying implementation till after Christmas? If so, I think this is pastorally wise. Unfortunately in the US the Christmas season begins on Thanksgiving Day, this year, 24 November. (If not before!) Despite efforts to keep some semblance of Advent, many of us often feel under great stress in the weeks leading up to Christmas and in the days following immediately after. (Not to mention depression.) Sunday (and weekday) Mass is often one of the few times for peace and prayer, a steady anchor, in a hectic time.
Pastorally, it seems to me, the introduction would better come with the resumption of Ordinary Time when people’s lives calm down considerably.
-
-
Congrats, Fr. Allan. But, as you well know, how many of your colleagues have given this even 5% of the effort you have made?
-
Hi Bill.
Don’t you think this whole issue w/ training and catechesis just goes against the grain and much catechesis is needed then it violates the constitution on sacred liturgy #34?34. The 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.
So much for the useless repetitions: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa
-
Hello Bill.
Don’t you think that the emphasis on the extensive catechesis and training to implement this translation goes against the grain and violates Vatican II’s Constitution on Sacred Liturgy #34?34. The 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.
Useless repetitions: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
-
Yes – in my heart. My response is to Fr. Allan specifically. LIke any pastor, he faces a decision that impacts himself and his parish.
Whatever my personal disagreements and defence of those disagreements in this translation debacle, the church is moving forward (rightly or wrongly; with or without the Spirit).
Have challenged Fr. Allan on his early parish introduction; his reasons for supporting the new translation and the process, etc. All that being said, he has now implemented and I accept his description of how his parish has received this “flawed” translation. My comment to him is about his perception of his parish implementation.
Not sure it brings any value to question Fr. Allan’s motives; his early reception and instruction to his parish (which I have repeatedly done); etc.
I would not have chosen his path but, then, I am not an active pastor with his responsibility.
-
Sorry for the glitch on my computer Bill.
My point is that if this takes so much catechesis
and includes useless repetitions then it violates
the constitution on sacred liturgy and is illegal.
It won’t be overturned by this curia but things
will change and everything in #34 could be used
in the future to either make adjustments or hopefully
throw the whole thing out. -
The Latin text of the Missal retains the “mea culpa” x 3, so that is clearly not a “useless repetition” to be eliminated by SC 34. SC 34 does not give translations the permission to eliminate repetitions retained in the reformed Latin text.
-
To address Jeffrey’s point, the repetition in the Latin is, from what I understand, valid. In Latin, you use repetition to emphasise a point.
I find the opposite is true in English, and repetition leads to the listener thinking “yes, we’ve already established that, what point were you making?” In English, the repetition is unnecessary: retaining it reveals a poor translation decision.
-
So is the repetition of “Holy” in the Sanctus (when we should be saying “Most holy” or “Holiest” in English) unnecessary?
Is the repetition of “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world” in the Agnus Dei unnecessary? We say the exact same words twice in a row (unless the cantor shakes things up a bit with a different Christological invocation).
Is the triplet in the Gloria that our current translation reduces to a doublet unnecessary?
Should the prayer over the bread and the prayer over the wine at the preparation of the gifts be combined into one to avoid unnecessary repetition of most of their words?
-
Dale, I hate to be snarky, but…
In Latin, you use repetition to emphasise a point. I find the opposite is true in English…
I think you’re over-reaching! I’m pretty sure if I was telling one of my kids or my wife, “I love you, I love you, I love you!”, they would know what I was getting at and understand that I was trying to be emphatic! I know it’s not the liturgy, but I think you’re overreaching similarly to the bishops against “all are welcome”.
-
While it may not be the case in British usage, in American usage, pace Strunk & White, repetition for emphasis is actually quite idiomatic in our usage. Our speech patterns are full of pleonasms. Maybe not among certain academic types, but actual American usage has never been anywhere nearly as laconic as some stylists have tried to make it. (What I hear when people insist on laconic speech is the little gremlin of their English composition professors inside their heads, insisting on brevity and concision for the sake of brevity and concision.) American religious and public rhetoric, and music, among other things, is also highly influenced by the rhetorical patterns of the evangelical churches, white and black, where repetition is quite the norm.
Yes we can.
-
if I was telling one of my kids or my wife, “I love you, I love you, I love you!”, they would know what I was getting at and understand that I was trying to be emphatic!
Certainly Paul McCartney thought so (see “Michele”).
Also, should MLK have left it at a single “free at last”?
-
Hello Bruce, no you’re not snarky but that quote came from another commenter, not me.
-
Bruce — ah ha! That’s what the bishop dislikes about the hymn “All Are Welcome”, its useless repetition: “All are welcome, all are welcome, all are welcome in this place.”
Deacon Fritz brings up another example of a triple repetition with an elaboration on the third item: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
-
Well, that’s me rather firmly put in my place. It may be a British thing, I’m not entirely sure.
Speaking personally, I find the repetition of “Holy” to be so brief that it doesn’t jar with me at all. When I stop to think about the Lamb of God, I do find it a little odd, but I’ve been saying the words all my life and I’ve got used to them. With the Latinised mea culpa, I rapidly run out of patience. The text of that prayer is addressed to God and to you, my brothers and sisters, and as one of those brothers and sisters, I, personally, want you to stop going on and on about your fault — you’ve admitted it already — and get to the point.
Maybe the thing I’m really objecting to is the return to prominence of the traditional Catholic guilt complex. It took me years to break through that and accept the redeeming love personified by Christ. An empowered laity may represent a danger our clerical overlords cannot countenance: a resurgence of guilt is a good tool to keep that down.
Cynical? Me?
-
-
-
Both the words “humble” and “human” are rooted in the Latin word humus, which means “dirt.” Would it be thinkable to make the words of our prayer together both humble and human—that is, down to earth—rather than riddled with stilted theological distinctions? Could the language of our prayer be dictated from the bottom up rather than from the top down?
Father’s admirable attempt is both flawed by his own words and, I believe, his prejudiced perspective that this is merely an exercise of political will. Humus we humans indeed are, and in our relationship with others and our Creator, being “humble” is good. But as Fr. O says the prayer comes “down to earth.” Prayer cannot be relegated to things earthly alone. We should pray in humility, but realizing that our prayers are an inexpressively beautiful gift from God, in that He endows us with the means to pray, Himself incarnated, sacrificed and resurrected. That’s pretty “down to earth.” But as the poet Henry Vaughan states “And here in the dust and dirt, o here-the flowers of God’s love appear.” Those flowers represent beauty which He wills, not something that we can enact of our volition.
This brings the discussion to the other misnomer: that this moment in the evolution of our presumably organic rites marks yet another moment when the political forces necessary to the maintenance of the Church levy only political power and will from the “top down.” That’s the biggest bugaboo fly in the ointment for those who regard themselves as progressivists.
What’s really “top/down” that poets, artists, musicians and theologians will always grapple with is how to enact all the aspects of the Divine Liturgy with the accoutrements and attributes that elevate our very selves from the humus and beg of us change and reach up as if flowers to the sun. -
(Brief continuence)
The liturgical wheel doesn’t require reinvention, Fr. O’Malley. In the matter of expressing our faith, we must accept that comprehension will always be tempered by and, in fact assisted and adorned, by those forces and truths we believe that are, now, incomprehensible. Just because that concept is at dynamic odds with itself, doesn’t mean the worship falls short or fails. It demands more of us than to remain stuck in the mud. -
I would add that I find Fr. O’Malley’s sample substitute for the prayers at the preparation of the gifts (at least I think that’s what it is) — “Heavenly Father, we offer you these ordinary gifts—bits of bread and a cup of wine—and we ask you once again, by that great miracle, to infuse into these gifts—and through them into us—the living presence of Jesus Christ, our Lord and our brother” — to be hardly an example of literary elegance or theological subtlety. I suspect it would not wear well on repeated hearings.
It might have a certain initial appeal as a raw expression of his own piety — and I do not doubt in any way the depth and sincerity of the devotion expressed — but it turns a simply blessing of God for his gifts into a quasi-epiclesis. Even if the word “epiclesis” is not in his dictionary, he ought to know that this is not the point in the liturgy to have one, however meaningful he might find it.
-
“Bits of bread” also struck me as exactly the wrong thing to say. Even when consecrating individual hosts, don’t we keep up the verbal fiction that this is one loaf? “Bits of bread” I’ll take after the fraction rite, maybe, but not before.
It is unfortunate that we were treated to Fr. O’Malley’s own improvisations as exemplars of what he considers to be a preferable style. It’s irrelevant to his argument, and it is a distraction from it.
I can agree with the central point he makes, yet I have to acknowledge that I don’t share his either his taste or his views about other matters.
-
I entirely agree, Rita. Fr O’Malley’s informal expressions do not enhance his criticism of the language of the new version.
In an Anglican church I know well, the leavened white roll is offered as a whole, then a piece is broken as each communicant steps forward. In our local URC (Presbyterian+Congregational) the small loaf is partly pre-cut into small portions and the communicants are served in their places by the Elders appointed for the task. Neither minister would speak of “bits of bread.”
The round unleavened altar breads used in most Catholic churches resemble coins in size, shape and impressed indentation. Square or rectangular breads would waste less of the specially refined flour and obviate the need to dispose of the trimmings.
But as a catechist friend of mine said, “The problem is not to convince the children that the breads become the Body of Christ – It’s to convince them that these round white discs were ever bread in the first place.”
-
-
-
I guess we all have different levels of happiness. I agree the translation is awkward. Honestly, when is the last time you heard any English speaker use the word consubstantial? (LOL – spell check just said it wasn’t a word)
On the other hand, I don’t necessarily think making things “feel” better is the goal. You can get that from any TV preacher show if you want. Or, you can watch Dr. Phil.
I also think some of us on different sides of the issue are fooling ourselves that our positions are correct. I am sure Fr. McDonald has done a lot great work, but his claim that no one objects is hard to accept as credible. Really? No one objects? Maybe not, but it’s hard to believe.
I will say that the basic premise of the article is something to think about: If it is such a great translation, why does there have to be an explanation of it?
-
Explanation!?
Why Catholics have been saying ‘and also with you’ (without even giggling) instead of a correct rendering of ‘et cum spiritu tuo’, and listening (without a sign of discomfort) to the plenitude of other ‘equivalencies’ in the mass for forty years is what needs explaining. Someone has been woefully remiss in their education and insouciantly dismissive of their spiritual heritage. Is it any wonder that the corrective needs explaining?-
Terms like “insouciantly dismissive” say a lot about your position, but it may not be saying what you think it says.
-
I urge caution. You are not assured a warm welcome when you enter a church and loudly proclaim to all present that they’ve been doing it wrong for years. You may, however, hear the muttered grumbling of “bloody converts” under the breath of those whom you deride.
Cradle Catholics stay with the church because of what it is, really, in the trenches and in the pews, not what the shiny brochures (usually published in Rome) say it should be.
What some decry as a pitiful lack of orthodoxy, others cling to as true faithfulness to Christ’s teaching on subjects including proper practice on the Sabbath, on the yeast of the Pharisees, on compassion, on the equality of all, women and men, and so on and so on. None of us is without sin, therefore we should not cast stones.
-
-
Just in general, and allowing for the fact that anachonisms have crept in since the current formula was developed, but why would we want our prayers to be any more “elevated” or use a more complex vocabulary than the Our Father?
-
This may be an oversimplification on this issue, but I will try.
The Catholic Left points to the concerns of the individual when it comes to the Mass Revision. The Catholic Right points to the rules and regulations and follows them when it comes to the Mass Revision. Do we go to Mass to follow the letter of the law, or to feel good? The Eucharist is the source and summit of our Faith, not the rules, and not our individual ideologies being supported and comforted. It is the Eucharist folks! Too Naive?-
Speaking from the Left, I don’t agree with your characterisation that I go to feel good. I go to be in Communion with God and the People of God. I go to pray. I go to experience God speaking to my heart. Quite frequently, this speaking does not make me feel good at all, but it does make me feel God.
I don’t go because the law of the church requires me to go. To do so would be an empty sacrifice, derided by Christ and many prophets before him.
I am currently finding that the new words are so clumsy and jarring that they seriously detract from my experience of the Mass and I find myself grimacing at the language right at the points where I should be being transported by the liturgy. The use of “chalice” in the consecration and the whole leaky-roof speech are specific examples. There are more. Over time, I am sure I will learn to ignore them, I doubt they will ever lead me transcendence.
In summary, I seek a loving and intimate relationship with God in his three persons, not a strict observance of rules handed out by man, nor a wooly yet meaningless good-feeling induced by singing happy songs in company.
-
-
My experience with the new translation is equally as bad.
If the church’s traditionalists and select members of the hierarchy want a more exact English translation of the Latin, then let them have the option of using it, just as they have the option of using Latin. But for those of us who prefer the closeness that we have with the current liturgy, let us retain it, because the new liturgy pushes God away from us. I think that the hierarchy realizes that if given a choice, most of us would stay where we are. They have to force the change, when we don’t want it.
The current translation gives me the impression of a loving, parental, God – still all powerful, all present, and all knowing, standing there with his arms wide open, beckoning you to embrace Him. It emphasizes the personal side of peoples’ relationship with God, because it uses common, unadorned language. The new translation, with its poor structure and uncommonly used words, places Him up on a throne, emphasizing the separation and the inequality of man and God. Not that I’m implying there’s an equality between God and man, there most certainly isn’t. But the current translation doesn’t emphasize that inequality, and that brings many people closer.
So, what is it that people “want”? A liturgy that emphasizes God’s greatness, or one that strengthens the intimate relationship that each of us has with God.
I wonder – maybe 40 years of the current translation has turned many of the members of the church into Protestants, at least in the eyes of the traditionalists and the hierarchy. If it causes them to leave, they may be saying that it’s better to weed out the people who disagree with them if they can’t change the opinions of those people. Somewhat Machiavellian in my mind. But it may give them the traditionalists more of the church they want.
To me, the current translation (or even the 1998 version) is still significantly better at keeping people close to God.
-
I think this is beautifully observed–and your observation about the new translation having turned us into Protestants ‘in the eyes of the traditionalists and the hierarchy’ is correct. As we use English and German vernaculars, we recognise that the points of difference between Catholics and Protestants aren’t where we used to think they are. For my money, Küng was basically right in his Justification right back in 1958 (in my view his best book): there are no differences about grace and sacramental transformation so great as to justify a continuing separation between Protestants and Catholics. There are, and remain, difficulties about authority and universal communion–more or less in their own right. For a Catholic, universal communion centred on Rome is intrinsic to the life of grace, in a way that it is not for Protestants. It’s humanly understandable that unimaginative Roman authority figures are nervous about discoveries and trends that unmask that truth.
-
I have a very literal, analytical mind. It is very hard for me to view the Mass in any other way than dogma, philosophy, and theology in motion. Yes, this is probably why I prefer the Latin low Mass, which is for many people dull, sterile, and downright boring. Conversely, in the austerity of the low Mass I encounter the following thoughts.
I never considered the words of the Mass, in any language, to conclusively convey the fundamental and inalienable manner in which God loves us. God loves us in the re-presentation of his one sacrifice, given for each one of us as if we were the first, and also for all of humanity throughout the entire scope of human existence. God loves us because he has justified us through baptism and confession and sustains us in grace with his Body and Blood. What more “welcome” is needed than this reality? We must rely on the Mass itself as the welcome, as the comforter, because we human beings are incapable of precisely articulating the joyful meaning of this love in any translation.
The assurance of the sacrament should be sufficient comfort. And yet, so many are looking for the “right” words, a pastoral way in which to couch this reality. Rather, we should walk in the well-worn path of our liturgical tradition while giving thanks for the life-sustaining Sacrifice. No innovative turn of phrase can supplant the reality of the sacrament.
-
-
This is the paragraph that leapt to my attention:
“When the official church has to publish a booklet explaining, step by step, why “this is good for you,” bet your bottom dollar it’s not going to be any help at all—especially not where Catholics really need it to help, in their weary and puzzled souls.”
One can argue points surrounding “his personal taste” and “the way he wants things done”, but this is the most telling reason for this translation debacle! It is not self-evident that this is going to be “good for us” – we have to be told! It’s akin to having to explain a symbol. If you have to explain it, it’s not a very effective symbol -
I know that “If you have to explain it, it’s not a very effective symbol” is/was a very popular school of thought in sacramental theology. I know in my graduate studies days at ND it was something of a mantra; I never could quite join in whole-heartedly, though.
Perhaps symbols don’t need explanation, but people do need catechesis and mystagogy about them, particularly in the surrounding culture that uses “symbolic” in a dismissive manner, and in which people aren’t accustomed to thinking reflectively (except maybe about themselves, thanks to self-absorption TV).
In my experience, the best ministry I’ve gotten to do in my presentations about the new translation ends up moving beyond mere explanation (still an essential starting point) and taking a reflective/mystagogical approach to the liturgy and its texts.-
To Alan and Linda: Fr. A. M. Roguet pointed out in his book “The New Mass” that “the Mass is not a Code that needs deciphering nor a theorem that demands demonstration. What is needed is initiation.” He spends the remainder of his book explaining — that is, initiating the reader into — the prayers, actions, gestures, and symbols of the Mass.
-
@Jeffrey P: Many of us already have a mass that serves us well, and we don’t want another mass into which we must be initiated.
We’re happy with our mass as it is.
As I said in another post, if there are people who want a more literal translation of the Latin mass in English then, by all means, allow parishes to offer a traditional English translation of the liturgy, just like many offer a traditional Latin liturgy. There are obviously people who do say they like the new translation, so give them the opportunity to use it. But allow those who want to go to the current liturgy to have the option to do that, like we’ve been doing for the past 40 years, instead of having it ripped from us.
Or is the church afraid that if they threw that kind of a party, nobody would show up?
-
Yeah, yeah, Jeffrey, except if that were true, there would be no need for a new translation, just proper ‘initiation’ into the existing one. You seem to spend a lot of time on semantics and in form over substance.
-
Charles, would you mind elaborating on your second statement?
-
-
-
Alan, I am in total agreement about the need for catechesis. We have been doing it in our parish (for the Roman missal) since August. But I think there is a difference between catechesis and having to explain a symbol, as illustrated in the paragraph I quoted above. (i.e. “and now we will bring in the big candle to symbolize Christ who has risen from the dead and is our light to dispel the darkness in our lives. This is symbolized by the spreading or the light from the big candle to our smaller candles”)
-
If catechesis and mystagogy aren’t descriptive of what initiation is, then I’m not sure what would be …
I haven’t experienced a lot of the Mass/new translation materials as being an explanation of the symbols. If you consider the texts of the Mass as a (kind of) symbol, then the materials from our bishop were falsely derided by Fr. O’Malley in the original article that this very long thread was originally about.
The USCCB materials don’t explain what a text is, they catechize us about the particular texts.
Whether or not one likes or approves of the new translation and the process by which it came to be, I think that in publishing materials that go through the liturgy step-by-step (the approach derided by Fr. O’Malley), the bishops were doing their job as our teachers. -
Christian McConnell :
“Wouldn’t it be a shame if all the experts on this blog were proved wrong?!”
Not at all. If I may presume to call myself one of these experts, I sincerely hope I am wrong about these translations, and that they will work well, and not sound like doggerel. If I’m wrong, the People of God will be well served, and that’s what counts.
On the other hand, if I’m right, THAT will be a shame. I’ll derive no satisfaction from being able to say “I told you so” to anyone.
FWIW, my prediction about the response from the pews is relative indifference. They’ll adjust to the odd words they have to say, ignore the more badly botched words the presider says, and perhaps shrug and wonder how this silliness happened.I’m in agreement that I would have no enjoyment in saying “I told you so.” And, we’ll probably follow the 80-20 rule, with 20% holding a strong opinion either against or in favour of the new missal, with 80% following along because, well it’s just one hour a week so let’s do whatever they want us to do and get it over with.
-
-
Linda and Alan made two comments explaining symbols, catechesis, and mystagogy. I shared a quote from a priest who wrote a book on the Mass, and somehow in doing so I spent time on semantics and elevated form over substance. I can’t figure out what I said that garnered your criticism.
The quote from Fr. Roguet was meant to show that the liturgy is something that needs some manner of explanation, whether you call it mystagogy, catechesis, or initiation. Is it this varied vocabulary for the same overall idea that makes me sound fussy about semantics? Clarification would be greatly appreciated. I find the more specific the criticism, the more fruit it bears.
-
-
I have a lot of sympathy for Fr Blue and other priests who feel they cannot say Mass in the new, bungled translation. Using the 1998, though, strikes me as a “congregational” solution – someone who wanders into the parish from outside will be unnecessarily confused. Moreover, the liturgical mutaween will lose no time in reporting any priest who uses the 1998 or sticks with the current translation.
There is a perfectly legal alternative to the gobbledygook of the new translation: say the Mass in Latin. The Latin Novus Ordo is something of a masterpiece; its simplicity and superior structure mean that it is a highly positive development over the Tridentine. A Latin Novus Ordo Mass can be said with as much or as little ceremony as desired; there is no need for maniples or birettas or the celebrant with his back to the congregation.
Since the new translation effectively requires a translation to be understood, why not simply say Mass in Latin, providing a booklet for the congregation with the Latin in one column and understandable English in the other? A number of central London parishes do exactly this for their main Sunday Mass. It is also what the Pope did when he came to the UK and celebrated in Westminster Cathedral, among other places.
-
I like the elegance of this solution–but it would be to concede too much to the real agenda of this ‘translation’, which is to force us all back into a dead language.
-
-
#28 Dale
You seem to be thinking of SC as if it were a constitution in the American sense: a fundamental law that is superior to statutes enacted thereunder. That’s not how Roman law works; SC is not that kind of constitution.Liam,
Sacrosantum Concilium is a dogmatic constitution and a conciliar document. In liturgical law its content is highly authoritative. The document itself bears more legal weight than Liturgiam Authenticam which is a document of a Vatican congregation, and an instruction on the correct implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Dale’s points about CSL 34 are valid ones.
.
by
Please leave a reply.