The Roman Missal: Truth or Consequences
December 7, 2009, 3:27 pm
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Fr. Mike Ryan is pastor of the Cathedral in Seattle. He is a genial, smart man and a pastoral pastor. He has some suggestions about the introduction of the new Roman Missal. There has been a good deal of discussion about the translations below http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=5640.
In this article in America, Ryan proposes a method to test the pastoral impact of its use. http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12045 Link repaired [Fixed.--GG]
on December 7th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Peggy, I can’t get the America link to work as posted. In the meantime, though, in the wake of the Ryan article, a petition has started circulating here: http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/Default.aspx
on December 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Fr. Ryan’s heart is in the right place and his proposal is valuable, or would be if the voices of the faithful counted for something, but I am afraid that the bishops have got that message that this “new translation” is what Rome wants and they are not prepared to save Rome from it own folly.
on December 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
…from its own folly…
on December 7th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
America link fixed.
on December 7th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Thanks Grant.
on December 7th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
One thing about all of the concern with pastoral impact is that I don’t remember there being much discussion about it – certainly with the layity – when liturgical reformers implemented their innovations over the last three plus decades.
on December 7th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
That’s laity
on December 7th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Sean Hannaway: Your point is true in general at least at the beginning. But it seems to me and others can join in, it depended on where you were. Many (some) of the “changes” were in place in some places before the council.. dialgoue Masses, Easter liturgy, Advent consciousness, priest facing the people when the logistics required it, etc. I’ll throw in Chicago in the fifties and early sixties. Since the council, we have lived in parishes that intermittently had liturgy planning meetings, catechesis, etc.
In any case, if this was done badly the first time around, doesn’t it make sense to do a better job this time.
on December 7th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Although disagreeing with Margaret O’Brien Steinfels feels a little bit like arguing with Mrs. Claus, I’m afraid I can’t help myself. If 40 years ago Marcel Lefebvre had said “let’s just wait”, would Fr. Ryan have been as accommodating as he wants others to be now? I’m also a little concerned when people snicker at “Joseph, spouse of the same virgin” and the like–sounds like some people in his archdiocese need to grow up a little.
Please don’t tell Santa on me.
on December 7th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Inasmuch as I’m the one who has been critical of Fr. Ryan’s piece in the other thread, I’ll weigh in here.
Fr. Ryan suggests a program of experimentation: trying out the new translation in selected parishes in each diocese, soliciting feedback from all the paricipants (including, most importantly, the people in the pews) and sharing that feedback with the translators and bishops. In other words, do something similar to what business people do all the time when contemplating new product launches: test market it to get some real consumer feedback.
I’m strongly in favor of the idea. Unfortunately, though – it is too late. The time to do this would have been when the bishops were considering the translation. That kind of wide consultation would have been wonderful. I agree with Fr. Ryan when he says, ‘let’s give our people a text that is worthy of them.’ This would have been a great way to do it.
As it is, though, it is water under the bridge. The bishops have already approved it and passed it along to the next step, which is Rome’s recognitio. (As I understand it, Rome has been approving submissions piecemeal as the bishops have been sending them along; Rome has yet to approve the overall work).
Because of the timing issue, what Fr. Ryan is, in essence, suggesting is that parish priests insert themselves into a process in which, to put it bluntly, they have no part to play. It is not theirs to determine whether or not the translation is good enough.
on December 7th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I have never met Margaret, but I’m convinced that, although she is certainly as kind as Mrs. Claus, she most closely resembles their much younger daughter!
on December 7th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
As anyone who knows the real me would tell you, I am no Mrs. Claus.
on December 7th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
The decision has been made. It was made by 90% of the U.S. Bishops. So let’s move forward.
on December 7th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Sean and Mark’s point, is I believe .. ‘they ,hierarchy/Rome did not consult the laity 40 years and so what,?? if they don’t consult you now’ Right..That makes the score even so to speak .. Big difference is that now I and most of the laity in the pews have ‘bigger’ issues than language and translations. not a big problem to most.. For many of us, stuggling to keep going to Mass, a few phrases will not be the deterance to go away completely . [See other longer commenting posts for some of the other real reasons. ]
on December 7th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
We Catholics should be going to mass of course to pray and to listen to the priest’s sermon, but mainly we should attend in order that we might witness the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and partake in (consume) the Body of Christ.
That is straightforward enough, but we also need words and music, and what sort of words and what style of music usually is enough to set some people off.
Since most Americans prefer that most of the Mass be in English, someone must translate it from the original Latin. And before anyone starts on about Greek or Aramaic, the fact of the matter is that for Roman Catholics, both the Tridentine and New Orders of Mass are written in Latin, which is then translated into the various languages of the world.
There seem to be two schools of thought on how to best translate things. The present missal was translated years ago using a poetic type of translation that claims to try to get at the “real” meaning of the original Latin, and that takes certain liberties with the actual wording. The other school of thought of how to translate things is to try as best one can to translate word-for-word and follow the sentence structure of the original text. The second method might be more tightly connected to the Latin, but the wording is sometimes not as smooth.
An example is like from Spanish to English, sometimes we do not translate directly. Consider for example the phrases de nada and me gusta. “De nada” does not literally mean “you are welcome” and “me gusta” does not literally mean “I like it”.
“Gracias for las flores.” The other person replies “De nada”. He is not saying “you are welcome (for the flowers); he is literally saying “It (his effort) is or was nothing”. Latinos use “de nada” as an idiomatic expression in place of “you are welcome”, but “de nada does not mean “you are welcome”. “Bienvenido” means “good you are here” and is often used to welcome someone.
Likewise, “me gusta la comida” does not literally mean “I like the food”. It literally means “the food pleases me”
Routine examples involving food and flowers are one thing, but the liturgy is more important. An example of the failings of the more poetic translation we currently use is the phrase just before Communion;
“Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed”
In the new translation the phrase is:
“Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul will be healed.”
The phrase is derived from the story of the Roman (pagan) centurion whose slave has taken ill. The soldier heard Jesus was in town and sent a friend to explain about the sick slave and ask that Jesus heal him. The Roman was a pagan, and he showed his respect by having his friend say “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my slave will be healed.” At that, Jesus healed the slave.
And so which phrase better relates or is better connected to the Bible story of the centurion’s sick slave? Frankly I had not heard this connection until about a year ago. Until then I had always thought “not worthy to receive you” had to do with not being worthy to take communion. Obviously the new translation better reflects the original meaning of the Latin. When people hear something about a roof, they will wonder what that is about, and will discover the story of the Roman centurion and his sick slave. They will elarn something and that is a good thing.
And so this bickering mainly involves folks who prefer the more poetic but less literal translation. Obviously the Vatican and the majority of US Bishops want to use the more literal translation method. Most laity are not that interested and our main focus will simply be learning the changes in our part of the liturgy and moving on with life.
The fact is however, that US Bishops have worked with Rome on the new (more literal) translation and are about finished that project. They followed a guideline Rome issued awhile back called Litergicam Authenticam (wrong spelling I am sure) and that for the most part, will be that.
When another Pope comes along who decides the translation needs to be reviewed in light of the current state of the language or for whatever other reason, the Bishops will again turn their attention to it. Until then, while minor changes might be made along the way, it seems they worked hard on this and are about done, and that we will use it for quite awhile.
on December 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Not sure I agree with some of these comments; history is being refashioned; facts are being left out; assumptions about 40 years ago are being made that are incorrect.
Guess any of us can listen to the June and November USCCB meeting on the new Roman Missal and hear different things. Kathy – in the post below – questionned a series of my “factual” statements.
Reality:
a) Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy set up a process which was collegial and used subsidiarity to address full, conscious, and active participaticion. The process clearly states that conferences of bishops will appoint their own liturgists/translators/experts who will begin the work; propose to the conference for approvel. By 1969 Paul VI approved his new missal which was printed and in general use by 1974; (this replaced the John XXIII missal)
*note that the Paul VI liturgy can be done in latin if that is an issue; it has a number of clauses that encourage maintaining Gregorian Chant; the use of latin, etc.)
b) Yes, there was one modification before the end of the council – Paul VI, under pressure, released a motu proprio that suggested that Rome would give recognition of what the various conferences of bishops implemented (not sure that this letter was ever fully explained and seems to be interpreted differently depending upon where you stand);
c) ICEL was already begun and outlined by the time the council approved the constitution by a 2,000+ approval vote to 4 negative. ICEL was important because it involved one of the largest, if not the largest, vernacular language group (especially when you consider that the english translations were being used by small vernacular language conferences as a guideline);
d) no one seems to pay attention to the 1996/1997 changes spearheaded by Cardinal Medina and the change to the CDW over all translations. Over the course of two years, Medina with George’s complicity (he was the new USCCB rep on the ICEL and in his first meeting demanded that ICEL must change its constitution (later statutes) because that is what Rome demanded. Medina’s agenda (can’t think of a better word) was to ignore the original constitution on the liturgy’s place for bishops’ conferences; the process for approval; etc. and state that Rome now must not only have final approval but must dictate who would be on the ICEL. This change was based on Medina’s threats; vague accusations about ICEL leadership; etc.
e) over 18 months of back and forth, the end result was that most of the original ICEL left, retired, or were forced out. The previous 20+ years of ICEL experience and interface process with Rome was negated by Medina who only agreed to meet with episcopal members of the ICEL). The 1998 missal was suspended and deemed inadequate in its translations (these were never spelled out with any specificity or clarity). The new ICEL was now appointed by Rome consisting of almost no english speakers (Bishop Taylor, the last head decided to retire because he felt that the ICEL needed an active not a retired bishop as head; no experts in liturgical translations; no experts in scripture studies. And this knowing that liturgical translation efforts take years of experience and time.
f) Vox Clara came into being – still not sure what its role is or function in this process;
g) Liturgiam Authenticam was produced which was the final nail in the coffin of the Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy. Why – as I stated above, VII produced principles using collegiality/sudsidiarity and empowering bishops’ conferences to initiate, develop, approve, and implement liturgical translations, new prayers, integration with RCIA, other sacraments, hours of the liturgy, etc. LA invalidated this approach. A papal letter eclipsed a church council;
h) LA went even further – it overturned Comme Le Prevoit (1969 Consilium instruction – by 1974 this function was taken over by the CDW) and “dynamic equivalence” with a literal translation that was almost rigid in its approach based on a latin missal whose own translation was not a primary source or document. It involved no input from scriptural or liturgical experts. It was much longer than the original instruction; more formal and legalistic and took effect in 2001 and seems to codify all of Medina’s objections directed at ICEL ….”complaints against us with which we had become familiar through correspondence were fully included, as well as all of the demands and instructions that we had received from the congregation. It almost seemed as if ICEL had provoked the composition of Liturgiam authenticam.”
i) Keep in mind that the CDW/Medina had the text of the Missal revision in 1998 (along with requests from most of the conferences for the required confirmatio – 11+ conferences had voted for the 1998 proposed missal….the closest vote was in the US but sill obtained 2/3’s). Rome/CDW sat on the ICEL and the conferences’ new missal for four years.
j) But Liturgiam authenticam was issued in March 2001 and, exactly a year later, the denials of recognitio were being sent to the conferences.
k) also, LA gave a general impression of control, restriction and general negativity. Here are some passages.
“…While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet”. (no.20)
Put this in context of some of the bishops’ statements such as Galeone and Trautman in terms of the 2009 USCCB votes; George’s unilateral approval of the antiphons w/o allowing for a conference vote or approval and you start to see the immense and significant changes over the last ten years.
By the way, after Dr. Page stepped down as ICEL director; a convert Anglican priest assumed his role, Rev. Harbert. He has now been replaced this fall by a UK priest who is member of the Tridentine Mass Association. How far we have come.
on December 7th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Thanks for that crash course on historical context, Bill DeHaas. Those who unthinkingly applaud the new translations usually (a) have not studied them closely; (b) remain blissfully ignorant of the historical context; (c) play down the importance of language anyway, on the premise that the laity are just not that interested.
The people who say that mere parish priests, let alone laity, have no role in approving the new translations are correct in one sense; Cardinal Napier in South Africa dismissed the lay outcry (which was universal) by saying we cannot let the process become a free-for-all.
On the other hand the bishops have entrusted parish priests with the onerous task of preparing the laity for the acceptance of the new translations. It is under this rubric that Fr Ryan and others are proposing concrete modes of procedure.
If it turns out that the new translations are simply unacceptable to the laity, as happened in South Africa, then that will create an unprecedented scenario and put the ball back in the bishops’ court, who may in turn send it back to the Vatican.
Note that the first ICEL translations were widely discussed in the years before 1970 and that ICEL produced a booklet explaining the translation of the Roman Canon line by line. It is not a “poetic” translation or even a “free” translation but a very sober effort to give the dynamic equivalent of the Canon in English today.
It seems to me that the new translations are faulty even as literal translations of the Latin.
on December 7th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Bill, just to take one thing at a time, dynamic equivalence was not a principle mentioned in SC, correct?
on December 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I think the pastoral perspective of Fr. Ryan is meaningful, far more than a few self described liturgical experts here.
I agree that it ain’yt going to happen, but to say i tshouldn’t because USCCB says so shows how servile to the Roman beaurarcracy not only that body but their unflinching supporters are.
on December 7th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Bill DeHaas’s read of the situation is accurate, as far as I am aware. I have been intimately involved in these matters for several decades and know many of the principal players and have access to the texts at the various stages of the new editions.
Kathy’s question can be answered, yes; dynamic equivalence was NOT a principle mentioned in SC; but it was the foundational principle of the major language translations, found in the document Comme le Prevoit.
Liturgiam Authenticam, with its principle of formal equivalence especially, is a misnomer: Its principles lead AWAY from authentic liturgy. Don’t believe me; believe the conservative Peter Jeffery and his masterful Translating Tradition: A Chant Historian Reads Liturgiam Authenticam,
My quarrel with the new English translation is not based on its more complicated and exalted vocabulary (as mentioned by Bishop Traurtman and Father Ryan). My quarrel has everything to do with the principle of formal equivalence, which is great for a “pony” to help non-Latin readers to understand the Latin text but will leave the average priest wondering what does this collect mean, for example, and will lead the assembly to ask, “What did he just say?” And if adults will not understand, where does that leave children?
on December 7th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“have HAD access” and “Trautman” (I wish this site had a preview panel, so one could check how a comment would appear).
on December 7th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Thank you, Paul.
I would be interested to know more about how we went from SC to Conmme le Prevoit, which seems to leave quite a lot of freedom to the judgment of the translators. For example:
24. (c ) Sometimes, the meaning of a text can no longer be understood, either because it is contrary to modern Christian ideas (as in “terrena despicere” or “ut inimicos sanctae Ecclesiae humiliare digneris”), or because it has less relevance today (as in some phrases intended to combat Arianism), or because it no longer expresses the true original meaning “as in certain obsolete forms of lenten penance.” In these cases, so long as the teaching of the Gospel remains intact, not only must inappropriate expressions be avoided, but others found which express a corresponding meaning in modern words. The greatest care must be taken that all translations are not only beautiful and suited to the contemporary mind, but express true doctrine and authentic Christian spirituality.
34. The prayers (Opening Prayer, Prayer over the Gifts, Prayer after Communion, and Prayer over the People) from the ancient Roman tradition are succint and abstract. In translation they may need to be rendered somewhat more freely while conserving the original ideas. This can be done my moderately amplifying them, or, if necessary, paraphrasing expressions in order to concretize them for the celebration and the needs of today. In every case pompous and superfluous language should be avoided.
on December 7th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Every translation is an interpretation. The Septuagint was not mere translation of the Hebrew Bible and neither was the Vulgate (or however much Jerome translated/interpreted of it). The objection to the new “translations” rests on this principle: they are not translations but interpretations, driven by doctrinal concerns. This is the issue that never really gets addressed in this debate.
on December 7th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Every translation is an interpretation. True. But the principles outlined in Comme le Prevoit are unusually free, and unusually concerned with being modern and current.
on December 8th, 2009 at 8:50 am
This is somewhat off topic, but a friend sent me this clip of the processional hymn for a Mass in Haiti. Not exactly the “exalted,” “sacral” personality some are trying to impose on the liturgy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMV5FM7hc4s
on December 8th, 2009 at 10:07 am
That’s awesome, Mark. I felt a similar but definitely differently-inculturated vigor among the congregation with whom and for whom I sang last night on the vigil of the Immaculate Conception. Like (but unlike) this Haitian congregation, we were united in songs of praise.
In my view, the words of the Pope on his post-African trip were underreported. Unlike the pre-Africa interview, which mentioned AIDS, this interview did not generate major headlines. But for liturgists it seems to me to be that the Pope made an interesting comment on SC 40: “…I was also moved by the spirit of meditative absorption in liturgy, the powerful sense of the sacred; in the liturgies there was no self-presentation of groups, no self-animation, but the presence of the sacred, of God Himself; even the movements were always movements of respect and awareness of the divine presence.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KensSNKjF-o
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
It would be better to say that every translation presupposes an interpretation, but translation always involves other matters than interpretation.
on December 8th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
JO’L: “The people who say that mere parish priests, let alone laity, have no role in approving the new translations are correct in one sense; Cardinal Napier in South Africa dismissed the lay outcry (which was universal) by saying we cannot let the process become a free-for-all.
“On the other hand the bishops have entrusted parish priests with the onerous task of preparing the laity for the acceptance of the new translations. It is under this rubric that Fr Ryan and others are proposing concrete modes of procedure.”
Any lay person who belongs to a parish and attends Mass regularly knows that the pastor is critical to its functioning, including the atmosphere, tenor of discussions, attitudes, etc. I do not overlook the role of other ministers and musicians, but my experience is that the pastor’s modus vivendi sets the tone; he is also the object of everyone’s complaints. Mike Ryan very obviously understands that and anticipates some serious problems with the new missal. If nothing else, his proposal gives pastors a way to rally further discussion about the new language and its implementation.
It might also provide, though he doesn’t say so, a mechanism for “civil” disobedience. If I were a pastor, I would be looking for every means possible to be a sane intermediary in a situation where I appear to have very little leverage. “The power of the powerless” can be a potent corrective as we were recently reminded on the 10th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution.
on December 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Two of the current hot discussions on this blog are the new translations and the Christological discussion.
I find it interesting under these circumstances that Comme le Prevoit singled out Arianism, or the combat against Arianism, as a less-relevant idea today–so much so that texts expressing anti-Arianism were to be avoided in the translations. In other words, expressions composed as a defense against Arianism have not been part of our liturgical prayer for 40 years, if the prescriptions of Comme le Prevoit were followed in the translation of the Roman Missal.
I would be interested in knowing the Latin expressions that have been omitted.
on December 8th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
How dare these Haitins actually ENJOY being in church and feeling comfortable expressing that joy! Don’t they know that it isn’t (gasp) Holy Roman Whatever to worship this way? The next thing is that the starch in their underclothings will melt!
And, how dare they! — there were actually white folk joining in!!!
Anyone who lives near a Catholic church with a large African-American, Hispanic or other non-European congregation might want to check it/them out. In most of these places, God’s frozen chosen will not be comfortable.
My parish, while far from this voluble, is nonetheless a fully participating group of people who relish the opportunity to be part of good, enthusiastic congregational singing. The few of God’s Frozen Chosen who worship there usually attend the Saturday night or early Sunday morning “meditative” masses. No touching and preferably no music that requires participation, thank you very much.
on December 8th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Kathy,
Though the discussion has centered upon translation — certainly a crucial topic –, a further issue is the actual composition and theological content of the Latin prayers of the 1970 Missal. Are you familiar with the studies of Lauren Pristas? Here is the address of her home page: http://faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/
There are links to her articles. See especially “The Collects at Sunday Mass: an Examination of the Revisions of Vatican II.”
on December 8th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Robert writes:
There are links to her articles. See especially “The Collects at Sunday Mass: an Examination of the Revisions of Vatican II.”
I’d like to note that John Baldovin, SJ, in his book Reforming the Liturgy: A Response to the Critics (Liturgical Press, 2008), discusses this very article in some detail. Here is his conclusion: “Pristas’ insinuations that there may be a theological error at the very heart of the reform, or that at times formulae give way to ‘Protestant sacramental thought,’ or that Dumas’ work represents a ‘rather cavalier approach to tradition,’ are, to my mind, without merit.”
I’ve read the article too, and I agree with Baldovin. If these assertions of Pristas are ones that you support, Robert, it might be better if you say so, so that we know where you stand.
on December 8th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Thanks, Father Imbelli. I have read some of Lauren Pristas’ work and have heard her speak, and was also pleased to meet and talk with her several years ago during her sabbatical at the John Paul II Intercultural Forum here in DC.
My sense is that she is a very careful scholar and deserves to be heard. Her examinations are word-by-word, and her considerations are factual and historical.
In my view, these discussions could not be more important. We believe as we pray. Do we believe in the real God, Who saves?
The words of the Mass could affect the acquisition and development of saving faith in the lives of believers.
on December 9th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Rita,
As you know, I posted below a reference to an interview with Robert Taft under the title “The Trenchant Father Taft,” identifying him as “a fervent advocate … of the reform” It has received, at last count, 95 comments (I almost wrote “theses”), a number of them from yourself.
On the basis of the final paragraph of your comment above, with its direct address of myself, I think the same adjective, “trenchant,” might be applicable. It gives me the impression that you are intent to ferret out closet LeFebvrites.
If you check the Baldovin book (p. 124, note 50), I do not believe he references the Pristas article to which I draw attention — which is not to say that some of her former criticism of the principles which guided the fabrication of the new collects (a criticism with which Baldovin politely, though without extended argumentation, disagrees) is not repeated.
The article in question is a careful comparative study of the Advent collects of the 1962 and the 1970 missals. It certainly is worth reading by those who comment on liturgical matters on this blog — especially in this Advent season.
Here are her conclusions, stated with admirable scholarly restraint:
“First, while the deliberate confection of an annual cycle of collects is unprecedented as far as we know in liturgical history, the new corpus enjoys ecclesiastical approval and, on this account, is to be received by the faithful with the utmost respect. Second, the new and untraditional character of the cycle of collects requires that we study it well, not simply in itself, but in relationship to its predecessor and to the use of sources that produced it. Only then will we be able to identify the unique features of our present Sunday and Holy Day collects and to understand both their place in the Latin liturgical tradition and the specific character of their contribution to Christian formation.”
“The latter part of the paper is an experiment in comparative textual analysis. The findings must be regarded as exceedingly provisional for the analysis encompasses only four of the sixty-six Sunday and Holy Day collects. In these four, however, we discern a markedly different presentation of our spiritual situation and the way in which God involves himself with us. If the 1970 collects bring to mind the psalmist’s petition “give success to the works of our hands,” the 1962 collects remind us of Augustine’s graced realization that God is more intimate to each of us than we are to ourselves.”
Indeed, the first sentence of her conclusion may even have application to the subject of this current thread.
on December 9th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Robert,
“Ferret out closet LeFebvrites”? Hardly. But if the insinuations listed above are ones with which you are sympathetic, it would be interesting to know that. Just because someone cites an article does not mean they agree with its content. You still haven’t answered my question by the way.
I went to the website and to my chagrin discovered that the article is indeed a different one. I was confusing it with “Theological Principles that Guided the Redaction of the Roman Missal.” Thank you for the correction, and for drawing attention to some of the more irenic passages of the article you recommended.
Still, as you yourself noted, “some of her former criticism of the principles which guided the fabrication of the new collects” are repeated. Plus, I would observe, she uses the adjective “untraditional” to describe the character of the present cycle of prayers. This description, despite the “restraint” you applaud, still signals the notion that the changes of Vatican II were a break with tradition, a notion the reformers would be eager to reject, I think.
on December 9th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Rita,
“Chagrin” can be salutary if it tempers precipitate judgment.
If I understand Pristas, she is not addressing the “changes of Vatican II” in globo, but the focus of her scholarly attention are the very specific changes introduced into the collects, and even more particularly, in the article cited, the Advent collects.
I may be wrong, but for all the discussion regarding “translations” (and I repeat important discussion), I wonder how many who comment on this blog are aware of the changes introduced into the collects of the Missale Romanum itself prior to any translation into the vernaculars.
At the very least, Pristas’ article (the one I cited) makes informative reading that can lead then to a more informed discernment.
Finally, as one who has celebrated and taught from the Missal of Paul VI (a Pope whose integral magisterium I cherish) for almost forty years, may I respectfully ignore what I consider to be a less than friendly “question.”
on December 9th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Robert,
Certainly. Ignore away. Pristas has expressed certain views, you recommended her works; it’s a legitimate question to ask if you are sympathetic to her criticisms. Had the recommendation come from someone who is already known as a hostile critic of the reformed liturgy, the question wouldn’t even have arisen. But let’s not argue. I take your statement about “informative reading” as definitive. Have a pleasant day!
on December 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am
“Are you now, or have you ever been, a hostile critic of the reformed liturgy?”
on December 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Do we foresee what pastors will have to deal with! No wonder Fr. Ryan is urging caution.
on December 9th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“Do we foresee what pastors will have to deal with! ”
If general-circulation magazines like America didn’t attempt to influence negative opinions of the people in the pew by publishing these polemical articles, pastors would have less to deal with.
It’s the equivalent of EWTN urging its viewers to report their pastors’ “liturgical abuses” to the Vatican.
Or so it seems to me.
on December 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Jim, that’s one way to look at it. Another is that something constructive is being proposed.
on December 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Margaret, I just think he’s too late with his proposal. And/or, his proposal is too ambitious for what can be accomplished now.
He seems to have two concerns. One is how the translation can be rolled out to the parishes. If that were the extent of his concern, I’d wholeheartedly agree with his proposal. Let’s roll it out in stages. Let’s designate some faith communities to “test pilot” the new texts. Let’s monitor the process in those faith communities to see what is effective and what is not-so-effective in getting the people to embrace the new texts. And let’s use the feedback from those test-pilot rollouts to roll it out to the rest of the faith communities. Yes, by all means.
But his proposal has a second aspect that is much more far-reaching. He wants, appparently, to amass evidence of the people’s (expected) distaste for the new texts themselves. And he wants to send that feedback to the translators and bishops, so they can rework the new translations.
It’s too late for that. The translations are already done. They’re locked down. The translators and bishops have completed their work. We can’t rewrite the story any more because tomorrow’s edition has, for all practical purposes, already gone to press.
As I stated in an earlier comment – I think it would have been wonderful had the bishops instituted a program of experimentation and feedback with the ICEL texts, along the lines of what Fr. Ryan is proposing, before they voted on them, to get some feedback from non-experts. Maybe such things happened and I’m not aware of it. But I don’t think they did. And now it’s too late.
Unless the translators and the bishops and Rome are willing to tear up what they’ve accomplished and do it all over again, I can’t see anything constructive coming out of Fr. Ryan’s proposal. Look how long it has taken to get a new text to this point – many years (decades?). And we’re still not completely thnrough the process. For better or worse, this is the text we’ll be worshipping with for the next couple of generations, at least.
on December 9th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
JP: “For better or worse, this is the text we’ll be worshipping with for the next couple of generations, at least.”
Possibly so. Whatever goes on at Mass, it almost certainly is not literary or linguistic criticism for most, if any, of the congregation. But will this language do what is required of a liturgy? Lift up our Hearts?
I am not a liturgist (she says with some relief), but I am a Mass-goer. Experience and observation tells me that for a liturgy to “work,” the presider, the congregation, the choir must actually be together in spirit at least some of the time. What they are saying and singing, and what they are doing contributes to that–or it does not. The examples of the new translations offered here on other posts and those I have read intermittently elsewhere strike me as expressing religious truths in arcane language. Maybe some people will find that “sacral” or elevated. My suspicion is that many (some?) will find it weird, meaningless, incomprehensible. One element of the liturgical armature will be gone, namely our words–or will be operating at half mast. The liturgy as a whole will be diminished.
Maybe we’ll all get used to it–or maybe the drift away from the Mass and from the church will continue apace. Will we have a “next couple of generations”?
This may be a fait accompli as you say. But as your argument implies it is only a fait accompli because Rome and the bishops consider that they finished their work, instead of recognizing that it has only begun.
on December 9th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
“But will this language do what is required of a liturgy? Lift up our Hearts? ”
None of us knows. We won’t know for years – until we’ve appropriated the new words, gotten past their novelty, and allowed them to begin to do their work in us as a ritual text.
I’m not a liturgist, either (and I share your relief! :-)). I’m a liturgical musician of the weekend warrior variety. One of my personal little predictions is that we’ll have reached an inflection point in our learning curve when our composers give us musical settings of the new texts that allow us to really sing the texts from the heart. Then we’ll be able to judge whether or not they are doing their work.
“But as your argument implies it is only a fait accompli because Rome and the bishops consider that they finished their work, instead of recognizing that it has only begun.”
Yes. It has become painfully clear over the years that the process we have for creating and approving the litugical texts isn’t capable of sustained, gradual, continuous improvement. It has all become too political and divisive. For the sake of unity and peace, we’ve had basically the same text since 1969. It’s difficult to imagine that the will is out there for more change after this, for a very long time.
on December 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
One more thought, from which we may perhaps draw hope, of a sort: we revised the NT Lectionary texts about ten years ago. There was much hand-wringing and complaining about that process, too, complete with Roman intervention. I don’t wish to belittle the concerns of folks who were concerned. But the new scriptural texts have been accepted very well, istm. It was a non-event. The bishops published the books, and people started using them. Of course, we ask much more of people with a missal text; I think someone mentioned that virtually every single text that the people speak or sing aloud will change in this new translation. But the experience with the Lectionary revision may illustrate that the Catholic people usually muddle through.
on December 9th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Do the Catholic people muddle through or do they even hear what the priest is saying or the lectors are reading? Bp Serratelli talks about the people’s part and the priest’s part of the liturgy as if the people need only worry about the lines they have to speak.
The will to change was broken by the Vatican’s rejection of the 1998 texts, the product of 13 years of work and consultation, approved by the English speaking bishops.
“None of us knows. We won’t know for years – until we’ve appropriated the new words, gotten past their novelty, and allowed them to begin to do their work in us as a ritual text.”
The people of South Africa immediately knew, as do most people who have actually studied the texts closely. They are unprayable and unproclaimable, as Bp Trautman rightly points out.
on December 9th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Liturgists worldwide are tearing their hair out over the new translations and much else that the Vatican has perpetrated of late. Of course one to the talking-points of the translations’ backers is that liturgists are all fakes anyway!
“If general-circulation magazines like America didn’t attempt to influence negative opinions of the people in the pew by publishing these polemical articles, pastors would have less to deal with.”
In South Africa the outrage was spontaneous, there was no need of magazines to stoke it.
The sensus fidelium may have been behind this. Quench not the Spirit.
on December 10th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I would not worry so much Fr. O’Leary. A lot of things happen in South Africa; that does not mean the sky is falling.
I think Jim is right, we Catholic laity will in fact “muddle through” but he forgot to mention the important part i.e., that we will muddle through – and will be alright.
While it is a bit more formal, the new English translation does track closer to the current Spanish translation, and Latinos have been using the current Spanish translation for many years, without much wailing or knashing of teeth.
In fact I have yet to hear one ¡Aye Carumba! about it.
:-)
on December 10th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I missed the earlier discussion concerning the translation of liturgical texts. May I say that it is far from obvious to me why we should have English liturgical texts that are translations from any other language, Latin or otherwise. Why not have the liturgy celebrated in the language used normally by the people who pray it? After all, therre are any number of liturgies not bound to the Latin.
I realize that there has to be some check for orthodoxy. But there is no need to tie that check to Latin.
on December 10th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
To the muddle-through advocates: What you’re saying then is that we are a bunch of sheep being led by goats following wolves who don’t speak our language.
on December 10th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Mrs. Steinfels: Fr. Ryan doesn’t think that -he’s started a website asking folks to join his let’s wait campaign and asserting (I think rightly) that if he can’t sell himself (or his fellow priests and lay folks he’s consulted), why should he bear the burden of this top down?
Of course some (who as Barbara, I think, pointed out on another tread) disagee for their esthetic reasons , that will get us nowhere.
I also wonder if Jim is willing to add his name to the wait campaign or is he firmly entrenched in fait accompli.
on December 10th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
If we don’t adopt this new translation, Jones will come back :-)
on December 10th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Bob Nunz: “Mrs. Steinfels: Fr. Ryan doesn’t think that.”
Agreed, I don’t think he does think that. I was addressing Ken Berg mostly, but Jim Pauwels as well, who, for different reasons I suspect, are strikingly sanguine about the matter.
on December 10th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
bdhauer – You raise a seemingly good point, but the thing is that Mass is celbrated all over the world.
Now in order for mass to be celebrated worldwide, it first needs to be written down. And If I understand you correctly, you prefer Mass be written first in English. The problem with that approach is that folks in other lands most probably prfer mass to be written in their native tongue. For example the folks in Brazil would like it if mass was written firts in Portugese, and the Frenchmen would like if in French, and on and on.
To resolve this matter, long agao the Catholic church adopted Latin as the language of the Church. Church documents and rites are first written in Latin, and then translated into the various languages of the world. Because the Novus Ordo is written first in Latin, it can and in fact sometimes is, celebrated in Latin.
The litury of the Roman Catholic Church is in Latin, and is translated from Latin into the various vernaculars so locals can hear it in their own language.
on December 10th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
In fact bdhauer, the entire Second Vatican Council was conducted in Latin, and the documents produced by that council were written first in Latin, and then translated into the various languages of the world.
on December 10th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Hi, Bob N.: I’m not feeling any urgency to roll this thing out. There is already a text in place that I’m comfortable with. If people want to wait and they can convince the bishops it’s a good idea, I’m okay by that.
on December 10th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Not sure if anyone has produced the link to Rev. Ryan’s petition. Here it is.
http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/
Have fun.
on December 10th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Fr. Ryan has this to say in an interview with Tom Fox: “For months I’ve been talking with priest-friends and associates whose reaction to the coming new translations was the same as mine. They lived in dread of them. They felt they were inferior, clumsy, and altogether unworthy of our greatest prayer. And, like me, they knew that the ’selling’ of the translations to the people would rest on their shoulders and on the shoulders of pastors all over the world. How would they convince their people of the value of making such significant changes if they themselves were not only unconvinced of their value but actually convinced that the translations were a disaster-in-the-making?”
Here: http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/seattle-pastor-begins-effort-review-new-missal-translations
on December 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Judging by the comments to Fr. Ryan’s interview, NCR readers love the initiative. Except for one recalcitrant sheep/goat/warthog, who wrote, “Stop stalling and get with the damn program.” :-)
on December 10th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Warthog! Wish I’d thought of that. They don’t speak English either.
on December 10th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
There are 100 or so comments at america on the original article -just like liturgy discusions here.
Most are favorable except a number from non-laity, Kenneth Wolfe(you recall him?) and the TWKBs who don’t think the pastoral issue is important and don’t think the laity should be heard from.
I’m not “comfortable” with that.
on December 10th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Perhaps a final thought: those who want Latin in their Mass (or even Latinized English) should just listen to more Mozart. Heard the Mass in C-moll tonight–a great piece of music, which it appears cannot be offered at a Mass in the Catholic Church, but can be offered at Carnegie Hall by the Saint Cecilia chorus and orchestra.
on December 11th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Bob,
TWKBs?
on December 11th, 2009 at 9:32 am
“Those Who Kill the Buzz”?
on December 11th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Those Who Know Better
on December 11th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I find myself wondering how much of The Resistance has to do with a certain revolutionary spirit, a certain American resistance to furren authority…
on December 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Ken, I do not suggest that English should supercede Latin as a “universal” language for the Mass or the Sacraments. The French would produce French texts, the Poles would produce Polish texts, etc. Each national bishops’ conference would determine whether more than one language had to be used because of the diversity of its nation’s populace. Apparently we already have this diversity in the matter of translations of the Bible. The Mass and sacrament texts now in Latin could be used as models for the content of the vernacular texts that I suggest. My basic point is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the Latin language. Why it should have to be the starting point for doctrinally sound liturgical texts throughout the Latin rite is beyond me. It certainly has nothing to do with faith or morals, but it surely does function as a way for a central body like the Curia to exercise control, even if there is no real need for control of this sort.
on December 12th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
One of the most horrific statements of Card. George at the recent USCCB meeting was that the Vatican is also insisting that the French translation of the Missal be brought more into line with the original Latin. The current French translation is quite beautiful, thanks to the participation of poet Patrice de la Tour du Pin. Letting the philistines loose on it would be criminal.
Ken writes: “While it is a bit more formal, the new English translation does track closer to the current Spanish translation, and Latinos have been using the current Spanish translation for many years, without much wailing or knashing of teeth.”
“gnashing” is the word. This comment is unconscionable. That the Spanish is closer to a literal translation of the Latin says nothing about the horrific infelicities of the proposed new English text. Closeness to the Latin is less likely to create problems in Spanish, a Latin language, than in English. But in fact the alleged closeness is not closeness at all: “just” for “justum” is fake closeness, then kind of mistake you get from non-native speakers of English. Even if the English translation were as close to the Latin as it claims to be, this would not excuse its lack of rhythm, syntactical common sense, communicative diction, and prayerfulness.
on December 12th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Also, the Vatican want the Spanish translations too to be brought closer to the Latin. Thus “Y tambien con usted” is to become “Y con tu espiritu”. The French has “Et avec votre esprit”, which has never been felt to be awkward as far as I know.
on December 12th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Oops, a misunderstanding. “Y con tu espiritu” is what the current Spanish Missal has.
on December 12th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I see the Spanish Sanctus has “Dios del Universo” for Deus Sabaoth.
Its version of the Roman Canon is closer to the current English translation than to the proposed new translation:
Mira con ojos de bondad esta ofrenda y acéptala
como aceptaste los dones del justo Abel,
el sacrificio de Abrahán,
nuestro padre en la fe,
y la oblación pura
de tu sumo sacerdote Melquisedec.
Be pleased to look upon them with serene and kindly countenance, and to accept them, as you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel the just, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.
on December 12th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
So it looks as if the current Spanish translation only further shows up the artificiality and bizarreness of the proposed new English translation.
on December 12th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall (Spiritus tui rore sanctifica), so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
The Spanish does not retain the literalistic “dewfall”:
por eso te pedimos que santifiques estos dones
con la efusión de tu Espíritu,
de manera que sean para nosotros
Cuerpo y Sangre de Jesucristo, nuestro Señor.
on December 14th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Fr. O’Leary, it seems to me that the “dewfall” has a from-above aspect that is lost in this Spanish translation.
on December 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
For the next 200+ comments on the subject, see http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=5859
on December 21st, 2009 at 11:54 am
GENTLE DEFIANCE is the road I shall take. When this new liturgy is foisted upon us, I will wear a wide black armband in church while remaining firmly seated and no longer contribute financially to the institutional church. WE ARE THE CHURCH! Subsidiarity can work… we still have female alter servers.
Peace & blessings to all.
on December 27th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I find the discussion interesting, but not surprising. I, and many of my orthodox Catholic friends, predicted long ago that with the turning of the wheel the wailing and knashing of teeth by the liturgical heterodox would increase. Just a few comments:
1. Who are the laity? I suspect when Fr. Ryan and his supporters, refer to the laity they mainly have in mind the vast army of lay liturgical experts who have amassed great influence in the Catholic Church in America; who would just love to have the chance to organize, and dominate, translation study circles, and then report their findings that the “laity” don’t want the new changes.
2. For 20+ years Church officials in the Archdiocese of Seattle did eveything they could to stonewall
the Pre-Vatican II Mass and the concerns of those who objected to all sorts of liturgical abuses practiced by numerous priests and lay liturgicgrats. I for one am taking some pleasure in their
discomfort.
3. Speaking only for myself; if the above referenced officials fail to implement the new translations as indicated, and in the time frame specified, the battle will be joined. I will no longer allow my spiritual life to be governed by heterodox liturgical fascists.
on January 1st, 2010 at 2:39 pm
This is a response to Mike Jankanish’s post of December 27. “Fascists”? “Battle”? It seems incredible to me that such language could be used in a conversation between educated people about the prayers of the Mass, of all things.
I believe that we are all faithful sons and daughters of the Church here. There is nothing “heterodox” about asking questions, even hard ones, or engaging in dialogue. Mr Jankanish does nothing for his cause by using disrespectful language that demonizes those who disagree with him.