When the new English Missal of 2011 was in preparation, there were concerns that it would be unduly large and hard for altar servers to hold, which has proven to be the case. There were proposals to create a \u201cbook of the chair\u201d with just the opening rites and the closing rites \u2013 mostly the opening Collect and the Postcommunion Prayer \u2013 which are proclaimed from the presidential chair rather than the altar. This excerpted book would be much lighter and manageable.<\/p>\n
But no. Rome made it known that no one had any business creating new genres of liturgical books. Any publishers\u2019 plans in this direction were stomped out. This is the Roman Rite. Mass has a missal<\/em>, period.<\/p>\n More recently, things have eased. Now one can use common sense. Word got out that Rome would approve such a book, and in fact already had for other places. So the BCDW put the \u201cbook of the chair\u201d proposal to the body of bishops today.<\/p>\n The discussion showed that there are reasons coming from all sides for favoring or opposing this thing.<\/p>\n First up to speak was retired Bishop Donald Trautman, former BCDW chair who made himself famous as an opponent of the new missal and its underlying translation theory (from Liturgiam authenticam, <\/em>2001). He was opposed<\/em> to this sensible, practical proposal. There is no need for this book; one can use the smaller chapel edition at the chair (and a bigger edition at the altar).<\/p>\n Then Archbishop Wilton Gregory, also a former USCCB liturgy committee chair, rose to echo Trautman\u2019s concerns. Before printing up more books with the current translation, we ought to look at the problems with the translation. There should be a review of the problems with the new Missal.<\/p>\n So there was reason to favor the \u201cbook of the chair\u201d: because it is sensible decentralization, a commonsense adaption not found in the official Latin edition but useful in local liturgical celebrations. This sounds like the \u201cspirit of Pope Francis.\u201d<\/p>\n But there was also reason to oppose the \u201cbook of the chair\u201d: let\u2019s not institutionalize a problematic translation and give it more standing and perhaps permanence.<\/p>\n Bishop Serratelli, current BCDW chair, responded negatively to Gregory\u2019s suggestion to start reviewing the problems in the new translation. Liturgiam<\/em> authenticam<\/em> is policy, it is being used for ongoing translations, and one must hold to this. Rome has not issued any document revising LA<\/em>.<\/p>\n A bishop rose to ask whether the US adaptations for the third form of the Penitential Act, tropes preceding each Kyrie\/Christe, would be right there in the front. He sounded just a bit irritated that the new Missal inconveniently places them in the appendix. (This was at Rome\u2019s insistence: we don\u2019t go by what works in the liturgical celebration. We go by Roman centralism. We make clear by inconvenient placement that national adaptations aren\u2019t based on the Latin original.) The bishop was reassured that it would be laid out for convenience, with the Kyrie tropes right there where you need them.<\/p>\n The most unfortunate thing is that no bishop rose to say the following:<\/p>\n