Irish Synod on Liturgy

Earlier this week the Irish Bishops’ Conference published the Synthesis of the Consultation in Ireland for the Diocesan Stage of the Universal Synod.  There is a section in this document on the liturgy.  Here is what it says:

There is a sense that funerals and special occasions are celebrated extremely well, but there is a need for more creative and engaging liturgies to connect with families and young people. Some feel the Church’s liturgies are boring, monotonous, jaded and flat; that they no longer speak to people’s lives. There was a desire expressed by respondents for the full participation of the laity throughout the liturgy; and for a wider more diverse group of people, including women, to take part. A minority view seeks a return of the Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II celebrations.

It was clear that the Eucharist is highly valued; so much so that, there is a desire for all to be able to receive, including those who are currently excluded. There was concern that the Sacraments of First Holy Communion and Confirmation are seen solely through the lens of the school and a desire that those presenting for the Sacraments would participate in the whole life of the Church.

Homilies were frequently described as being too long, ill prepared, irrelevant, monotonous and not always connected to life. Church language in the Liturgy is seen as archaic, non-inclusive and hard to understand, particularly the language in the Old Testament readings and liturgical prayers. There was a clear call for simpler, user-friendly, inclusive vocabulary.

The power of prayer was very much valued, as well as the presence of music and song. Some participants felt a great sense of love for our devotional practices and others talked about the power of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Some participants long for the return of House Masses, Station Masses and particular feasts. It was requested that Laudato Si’ and a greater presence of environmental issues be part of our liturgies, particularly at certain times of the year.

There were requests to move Mass times, so they did not clash with working hours, family time or sporting occasions. There was also a sense that in the future, people may not be reached through liturgy, so a prior step is required in relation to encountering Jesus on a personal level.

At the end of the synthesis document there are some observances on what didn’t emerge from the Synod discussions:

Notable Issues That Were Not Strongly Present from the Consultation

The Sacramental Life of the Church: Whilst there was a strong focus on participation in and renewal of the celebration of the Eucharist there was little mention of the other sacraments and their importance for Christian discipleship and a personal and communal relationship with Jesus Christ. In reading the various syntheses and submissions it seems that faith is often more implied than expressed explicitly. However, it may be that in Ireland faith is often mediated institutionally and thus, there can be a focus on structures rather than relationship. The question also emerges whether many Irish Catholics are ‘sacramentalised but not evangelised’.

Looking at the various diocesan summaries for the twenty-six dioceses in Ireland (on the respective diocesan websites), it is clear that the language of the liturgy is still a major issue.  19 of the dioceses (73%) mention that the language of the liturgy is too archaic.  In Ireland the 2011 translation of the Roman Missal was not as widely welcomed as in other English-speaking countries, with a very negative survey of the clergy being published a year after it was implemented.

Obviously there are a lot of angles to what is reported in the synthesis, and a synthesis cannot convey every nuance.  But there is undoubtedly a lot of work to be done in fostering a better appreciation of the liturgy in Ireland. In particular, I think that the reduction of the whole liturgical tradition to Sunday Mass is worrying.  Hopefully the continuing Synodal process and the implementation of Pope Francis’ Desiderio Desideravi will help with the liturgical formation of the people of God in Ireland so that the liturgy can be a source of joy, comfort and life to the Church in Ireland.

Fr. Neil Xavier O'Donoghue

Neil Xavier O’Donoghue is originally from Cork, Ireland. He is a presbyter of the Archdiocese of Newark, NJ who has ministered in parishes on both sides of the Atlantic. He has spent many years as an academic mentor to seminarians. Neil currently serves as Programme Director for Liturgical Programmes at the Pontifical University and as Acting Director of the National Centre for Liturgy. Since 2020 he has also served as the Executive Secretary for Liturgy to the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference. He has studied at Seton Hall University (BA, MDiv), the University of Notre Dame (MA), and St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (MTh). He holds a Doctorate in Theology (Ph.D.) from St Patrick’s College, Maynooth and is in the process of completing a second doctorate (D.D) in the Pontifical Facultad de Teología Redemptoris Mater in Callao, Peru. Neil has published a translation of the Confessio of St. Patrick: St. Patrick: His Confession and Other Works (Totowa, NJ, 2009), as well editing the third edition of Fredrick Edward Warren’s The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church (Piscataway, NJ, 2010). In 2011 the University of Notre Dame Press published The Eucharist in Pre-Norman Ireland an adaptation of his doctoral thesis and in 2017 the Alcuin Club published his Liturgical Orientation: The Position of the President at the Eucharist. His articles have appeared in The Irish Theological Quarterly, New Blackfriars, The Furrow and Antiphon. He writes a monthly article on some aspect of the theology of Pope Francis in the Messenger of St. Anthony and blogs regularly at PrayTell.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

30 responses to “Irish Synod on Liturgy”

  1. Devin Rice

    “There were requests to move Mass times, so they did not clash with working hours, family time or sporting occasions. There was also a sense that in the future, people may not be reached through liturgy, so a prior step is required in relation to encountering Jesus on a personal level.”

    Is this referring to moving the time of Sunday Masses or weekday Masses? Also the liturgy is for those who already have relationship with Jesus on a personal level, so there is a valuable insight in the second part of text I quoted above.

    “Church language in the Liturgy is seen as archaic, non-inclusive and hard to understand, particularly the language in the Old Testament readings and liturgical prayers.”

    Isn’t the Jerusalem Bible used in liturgy in Ireland? You really can’t simply Scripture more than that and still be have it be considered Scripture. I wonder if this hiding just a basic discomfort with what the Old Testament is communicating in of itself. Also perhaps this is the reason why in both East and West, the Old Testament lesson was dropped from the Eucharistic celebration.

    “It was requested that Laudato Si’ and a greater presence of environmental issues be part of our liturgies, particularly at certain times of the year.”

    I tend to be conservative in adaptions to the Liturgy, but one thing I do think would be worthwhile is for composition of new texts (hopefully based in part on ancient sources) to provide for occasions not already covered in the current missal. It would make sense for their to be a set of Mass texts related to the preservation and stewardship of the environment.

    Reply
  2. Paul Inwood

    In Ireland the 2011 translation of the Roman Missal was not as widely welcomed as in other English-speaking countries

    I doubt very much whether it was welcomed in any other English-speaking country, in fact.

    Some liked the literal fidelity to the Latin, but many others threw up their hands in horror at an artificial language that parodied what was in place 100 years ago. This attempt by Vox Clara to undo the reforms of Vatican II remains nothing less than a running sore in the life of the Church, and the bishops need to take cognisance of it. It is nothing short of scandalous that we are still hearing the texts of a Google-translated version of the Missal well over ten years from when it was first imposed, and five years since Pope Francis empowered episcopal conferences to regulate texts in a way that would nourish the faithful and start to repair the damage that has been caused.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Hawkins

      It was certainly objectionable, the way we went from a rushed anemic translation to a rushed clumsy one, when we could have had what ICEL and the bishops had slowly crafted. But is there any enthusiasm among the bishops for wholesale liturgical change? I have only just arrived at being able to say the Gloria without looking at the text. The obvious thing to do for a start would be to authorise using the 1998? translations of the orations, without changing any of the other parts. Other parts of the Mass become familiar through repetition, and can be explained in homilies, but the unEnglish scattering of sub-clauses in the orations leaves some celebrants clearly uncertain of what they are saying.

      Reply
      1. Todd Flowerday

        Let’s be accurate in comparing unlike fruits, “we went from a rushed anemic translation to a rushed clumsy one, when we could have had what ICEL and the bishops had slowly crafted.”

        1970/75 was always understood to be a preliminary effort. A more apt comparison might be a baseball team losing 6-4 at spring training. The result didn’t really count, and it got the manager a look at a few new players and the vets got into shape. What the CDWDS did in 1998-2010 was acquire a whole new set of players who lacked skills, athleticism, and teamwork, and on opening day lost 17-2.

        If we were fans, we’d still be suffering through a season with this last place team.

    2. Sr Miriam McNulty

      Couldn’t agree more. I listen to these texts everyday and there is only the occasional collect that reads well. If we were to produce a parody liturgy many of the texts could be lifted wholesale. I begin to wonder if there were any native English speakers in the translating teams. There certainly weren’t any poets.

      Reply
    3. Alan Griffiths

      The Irish have a great facility with the English language, as witness their 19th and 20th Century poets and playwrights. It is hardly surprising that there should be a negative reaction to the 2011 missal translation. And as Paul writes above, such a reaction is not confined to Ireland.

      Also, the ‘mock tudor’ language of the missal might by some in Ireland be perceived as the language of the English oppressor from the time of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, James I and Oliver Cromwell.

      AG.

      Reply
    4. Don Frickel

      Agree. I often hear this procrastination attributed to a concern about the expense of issuing a new translation. Seems like that’s the wrong priority.

      Reply
    5. Paul Inwood

      The rumour mill says that at last month’s meeting of ICEL the representatives of the three largest English-speaking episcopal conferences stated that the current Missal translation is absolutely perfect and that there is no desire nor need to revise it!

      If the bishops are really this much out of touch with the grass roots, what hope is there?

      Reply
      1. Karl Liam Saur

        I speculate that a number of people who frequently comment here are not very likely to be in active ministry when the next full* English edition of the Roman Missal is published and implemented in the USA, among some other places.

        * As opposed to, say, a supplemental retranslation of the collects and certain other presidential orations.

      2. Karl Liam Saur

        Unrelated PS: Abp Rembert Weakland OSB has died at the age of 95.

      3. Alan Johnson

        Well they aren’t exactly going to admit that they got it wrong are they?

      4. Karl Liam Saur

        Well, the “they” of 2010/11 is not congruent with the they of 2022, let alone 2032 or beyond. I have no sense about the episcopal bench in England and Wales, or Canada, but I see no sign that the episcopal bench in the USA – or enough of the the people currently in the pews in the wake of the pandemic – would rank this high on their triage lists.

        As for people who’ve left the pews: when one leaves the pews, one effectively takes oneself out of the conversation. (Cf. observation by the late Rosemary Radford Reuther.) Among the things to consider: people upset by TC may be far less likely to actually leave Catholic pews than those who are still upset by the Missal translation, and that asymmetry will skew the future topics of conversation even if the results of such conversations won’t necessarily please them. That said, whoever has the more passionate and organized involvement in non-private conversation (caution: online polls are meaningless) is more likely to have a stronger oar in steering the dominating topics of conversation.

      5. Karl Liam Saur

        PPS: NY Times obit for Abp Weakland:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/us/archbishop-rembert-weakland-dead.html

      6. Paul Inwood

        Alan Johnson said

        Well they aren’t exactly going to admit that they got it wrong are they?

        The sad thing is that some bishops have indeed said precisely that in private — I can testify to this personally — but feel unable to say so publicly.

        The problem is that those who run episcopal conferences with a rod of iron (and we know who they are, and the topics that they stifle from birth and will not allow their brother bishops to discuss) will brook no dissent from whatever their chosen party line happens to be.

      7. Karl Liam Saur

        The incoming (as of November) chair of the USCCB’s CDW is Bp Lopes of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter (elected last November by a razor thin margin of a single vote, 121 to 120, over Abp Rozanski of St. Louis).

        Presumably Abp Vigneron of Detroit would be the leading candidate to succeed Abp Gomez of LA as president of the conference, as Vigneron is currently the VP.

      8. Alan Griffiths

        Absolutely perfect?
        Goodness me!!!

        ‘Quapropter, profusis paschalibus gaudiis …’ – ‘Therefore, overcome with paschal joy …’

        Simple mistranslation. And there is so much more.

        Absolutely perfect? Really!

        AG.

    6. Cole Robbins

      I have no idea how one can say that the revised translation was “undoing” the reforms of Vatican II.

      Reply
  3. John Woodhouse

    Could not agree more. Why was there was there very little mention of liturgy and Laudato Si’ in the England and Wales reports?

    Reply
  4. Fr. Jack Feehily

    I hope Paul Inwood was given a bum steer by his ICEL source. How could the bishops of the United States and the two other large Conferences of English speaking bishops be so out of touch with the experience of their priests and people. The translation is tolerated because it has been imposed on the diminishing number of laity and clergy who have clericalism down pat. So much for the synodal path.

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      If the report is true, and categorizing by the number of dioceses, the next two largest conferences are Canada and Ireland.

      Reply
      1. Rita Ferrone Avatar
        Rita Ferrone

        I understood that the conference for England and Wales was staunch in backing the 2011 translation. Hmm.

      2. Frances Simmons

        Am I correct in thinking that, at their plenary council, the Australians voted to commission a new translation?

      3. Anthony Hawkins

        Yes Frances, there was a thread on this blog starting July 8
        New English Mass translation: The gathering backed a request for the bishops’ liturgy commission to prepare “a new English translation of the Roman Missal that is both faithful to the original text and sensitive to the call for language that communicates clearly and includes all in the assembly.”
        The vote calling for retranslation of the missal among the bishops was 42 in favor (placet), 0 in favor with reservations (placet iuxta modum), and 1 not in favor (non placet). Among the other participants the numbers were 181-6-18).
        I seem to remember a similar move in New Zealand a liitle while back

      4. Paul Inwood

        I understood that the conference for England and Wales was staunch in backing the 2011 translation. Hmm.

        You are right to say “Hmm”, Rita, because a number of the E&W bishops are both unhappy with the translation and unhappy that the archbishops at the top of the table have been stifling their views.

  5. Edward Hamer

    I’m very late to this, but just to say that the newer English translation of the missal is considered a vast improvement by a non-negligible number of people. I have no idea if the majority of laypeople are for or against (who does?) but anecdotally the people I tend to talk to see it as a clear improvement. From what I can see the old translation omitted much of the sense of the Latin texts, and a lot of people much prefer “churchy” English for church, even if it feels a little stilted at times. I use the Ordinariate Divine Worship book at home and that (with its thees and thous) is “sacred” English as far as I’m concerned.

    I must say I don’t envy the bishops, stuck between some laity who want a liturgy as close to the Latin Mass as possible and some who want the liturgy to be spontaneous and “inclusive” and all that stuff. You simply can’t give both groups what they want at the same time unless you consciously go down an Anglican-style route of having High Church and Low Church parishes which do their own thing.

    Reply
  6. Edward Morris

    Well they aren’t exactly going to admit that they got it wrong are they?

    One would hope bishops would have the grace and humility to do precisely that – if they
    did indeed believe they had got it wrong.

    Perhaps they do not feel they got it wrong, but I hope they are not deaf other opinions.
    Would “Magnum Principium” have arisen if there were no concerns with the English
    translation?

    Of those who have expressed an opinion to me on this matter, the great majority of
    comments have been against the current translation. Perhaps they already know my opinion,
    and find it politer or easier to agree?

    This is not some play or magazine article we are talking about here: … this is the Holy
    Mass.
    It should be a first-rate translation.
    It should be the jewel in the crown of the English-speaking Church; no “if”s, no “but”s,
    and no expense spared.

    I had hoped the synodal process would address the English translation; but I suspect my
    comments were filtered out at the parish level. There seems to be no mention of the
    English translation in the diocesan report.
    I do have high hopes for the synodal process on other matters though, … but that would
    take me too far off topic.

    Reply
  7. Fr. Jack Feehily

    Anyone familiar with the history that led up to the adoption of the 2011 translation should know full well that it was imposed by the reactionary leaders who were holding sway during the John Paul II and Benedict pontificates. They invented “sacral” English and put it into a Latin context. Why should “more like the Latin” be a translation principal in the 21st century? English speaking Catholics–clergy & laity alike–are perfectly capable of composing prayers written in the idiom of practicing Catholics.
    Magnum Principiam has set the stage for new translations around the world. In the meantime, without changing “one word” that actually disturbs or corrupts the link between prayer and faith, slight modifications help people to identify with the prayers of Catholic worship.

    Reply
    1. Cole Robbins

      I’m a bit confused as to why you say “English speaking Catholics–clergy & laity alike–are perfectly capable of composing prayers written in the idiom of practicing Catholics.” The topic is not composing; it is translating.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Jack Feehily

        Why does there need to be a Latin Text to which all translations must be conformed? Because we’ve always done it that way? The leaders and faithful in all language groups include those who fully understand the components of the liturgy and able to create texts that accurately reflect the faith of the church without a Latin text. Do we suppose that in doing so each group would likely create or invent forms of the Mass that would fail to incorporate the fundamental elements handed down to us from the apostles? The proper authorities in Rome have responsibility for confirming all such texts. Is that not a sufficient provision to insure that the Mass of the Roman Rite in each and all languages would sanctify those seeking to worship God in spirit and in truth?

  8. Cole Robbins

    “There is a sense that funerals and special occasions are celebrated extremely well, but there is a need for more creative and engaging liturgies to connect with families and young people. Some feel the Church’s liturgies are boring, monotonous, jaded and flat; that they no longer speak to people’s lives.”

    Is the Liturgy principally about us or is it about God? When does creativity + liturgy ever end well? Let us dwell on the words of Pope Francis in his Letter on the Liturgy:

    “The ars celebrandi cannot be reduced to only a rubrical mechanism, much less should it be thought of as imaginative — sometimes wild — creativity without rules. The rite is in itself a norm, and the norm is never an end in itself, but it is always at the service of a higher reality that it means to protect.”

    Additionally, in recent comments, Pope Francis has said that we need to celebrate the Liturgy in light of Tradition (correctly understood). When has Liturgically creativity ever been a part of the Tradition of the church? Never. When you look at history, liturgical development is historically extremely conservative. Our primary goal for the Liturgy is to praise God in a worthy manner, with beauty, not to pander to the people to make things more “exciting” for them. At that point you simply begin to worship your own tastes and preferences.

    Next comment:

    “There was also a sense that in the future, people may not be reached through liturgy, so a prior step is required in relation to encountering Jesus on a personal level.”

    I hope they take this comment in context with the fact that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. The wording above could make it seem like they simply want to push the liturgy to the side and move to a sort of “It’s just, Me, my bible, and Jesus” sort of Christianity.

    Reply

Posted

in

, ,

by

Fr. Neil Xavier O’Donoghue

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading