I’ve told you before about Jerry Galipeau’s great blog Gotta Sing, Gotta Pray. Today he has a longer post than usual about the reaction of a large group of parishioners when he explained the new translation to them. Very interesting: pretty mixed and a bit rocky. I think that those of us committed to the Church’s worship who want the implementation to go as well as possible will have our work cut out for us. The people in the pews will want to know just why we’re doing all this.
awr
Send to Kindle:
#1 by Ceile De on March 4, 2010 - 1:22 pm
Reply Quote
And, what, pray tell, will you tell them, father?
Report Comment
#2 by Fr. Christopher Costigan on March 4, 2010 - 1:37 pm
Reply Quote
I would be interested to hear some of the stories of those in the parishes in 1970. How was the new Missal presented/explained to the people/what was the reaction, etc. I think we are at a considerable advantage this time around for several reasons. First, it is just a translation not a new order of Mass. The priests and people aren’t learning to do something totally new. Second, technology. Third, people are generally more educated. But I think it is always good to learn from what worked and didn’t work in the past. That, and I am just interested in people’s experiences during that time.
Report Comment
#3 by Ioannes Andreades on March 4, 2010 - 2:27 pm
Reply Quote
This may seem laughable, but when people don’t like the changes, make sure that you say that you understand their objections, validate their disappointment. Some people will be upset and angry, and telling them simply to get witht he program or that they are being disloyal Catholics is the wrong way to go.
Report Comment
#4 by Fr. Allan McDonald on March 4, 2010 - 2:54 pm
Reply Quote
Again, I am baffled! We’ve known about this re-translation issue since 1989 and we should have been preparing our people for it since that time. I have now in two parishes. For the past five years I’ve been telling my current parish about it. We now sing or say the Dominus Vobiscum…Sursum Corda, Pax Domini–in Latin for two months, also the Latin Santus, Agnus Dei and in Easter the Gloria at all the Masses and I told them we’d do this until Advent of 2011. I’ve directed them to the bishop’s website and prayed (illicitly) Eucharistic prayers and priest parts from the new English, all the while asking for feedback–all positive–no mutiny even with the Latin! It depends all on how we present it and how long we’ve been doing it. It is time to stop stalling and get to work people! BTW, our collection has increased!
Report Comment
#5 by Jeffrey Herbert on March 4, 2010 - 3:15 pm
Reply Quote
Actually, to be fair, Jerry’s description of the reactions from “those in the pews” also included those who were very happy, several who suggested that returning to Latin would be the preferable option, some who were skeptical at first, but then discovered that the texts were nothing like what had been portrayed and ended up happy with them, and a few individuals who sounded more like “seminar plants” who were pushing an agenda, one of whom cited form letter type talking points like the word “ineffable” being too difficult and did a plug for the “whatifwejustsaywait.org” website.
Despite my differences with Jerry on many issues, I have had and continue to have many good and fruitful discussions with him, and I have to say that I don’t envy him for having to go out on these encounter sessions and listen to a lot of misinformation from both sides and try to address it.
Report Comment
#6 by J Thomas on March 4, 2010 - 3:41 pm
Reply Quote
Reference to “liturgical abuse” that Jerry Galipeau’s cited as the cause of LI seems a bit fanciful. In my years as a Roman Catholic I have never experienced made up Eucharistic Prayers, Motorcycle Masses, or Pizza Consecrations as the apocryphal stories go! I have never experienced a “liturgical abuse.” If this is the source of Vatican reproach of the reform, which I think it’s only a convenient excuse, then LI is four decades too late (according to the apocrypha). Mr. Galipeau should have been more forthright and said the real reason is that the “reform of the reform” doesn’t want the People of God praying in their own tongue and slavish translations of the Latin into English are simply a step in that direction of that goal. “Lest there be any misunderstanding…I am very grateful for the new Missal…quite apart from the availability of the vernacular.” (Feast…
Report Comment
#7 by Samuel J. Howard on March 4, 2010 - 6:09 pm
Reply Quote
I’ve only been Catholic since 2001. I’ve personally experienced completely ad libbed Eucharistic prayers once (Diocese of Albany), but on the fly edited ones many times (Diocese of Rochester and Archdiocese of New York). Here’s an AP story about a motorcycle being riden down the aisle of Basilica during the Palm Sunday procession.
Report Comment
#8 by Jeffrey Pinyan on March 4, 2010 - 8:55 pm
Reply Quote
I too have heard a modified (don’t remember to what degree) Eucharistic Prayer in the Albany diocese, at a college chapel.
Report Comment
#9 by Jeffrey Herbert on March 4, 2010 - 9:08 pm
Reply Quote
J .Thomas;
As one who has attended 5-7 Masses each weekend for some 30 years now, I can tell you that such abuses are not “apocryphal” but are quite the reality. Are they the majority? Not by any means, but they occur often enough to be a concern, not only for the Holy See but for all Catholics. Such things as “Pizza Masses” (been there) and Motorcycle Masses (every February at Holy Family in Everglades City FL… I was in charge of the music for that too!) are real, but not the big concern. Clown Masses (a fixture of urban parishes circa 1978 or so) are now mostly confined to specific parishes, but that never were the reason for LA (not “LI”).
LA came about specifically so that the “People of God” (please!) CAN pray in their own tongue with the words that constitute the ROMAN RITE. I think Jerry is very much aware of that and was addressing that very point.
Report Comment
#10 by Ioannes Andreades on March 5, 2010 - 10:33 am
Reply Quote
The only church I have NOT experienced the illicit modification of texts is the church where I grew up. It has happened everywhere else. Last year at Easter Vigil I was treated to hearing someone being confirrmed, “Be sealed by the gift of God’s Holy Spririt.” If the Holy Spirit is God, why say it this way? Our pastor, otherwise the gentlest and humblest man you’ll ever meet, has no problem modifying texts and improvising forms illicitly.
Again, I don’t think that the new translation will stop it, but that’s not really why I’m looking forwared to the new translation.
Report Comment
#11 by Lynne Gonzales on March 6, 2010 - 12:25 pm
Reply Quote
I have to believe the liturgical anomalies are highly reported because they are just that…an anomaly. Just as “if it bleeds, it leads” is true in print, radio, & TV, so too liturgical anomalies.
They are rare…that’s why they’re news.
Since they are so rare, there is no need to toss out the baby (our current English translations) with the bathwater…could there be improvement in our current English missal? Sure…so let’s rework the awkward portions and leave the remainder intact.
Report Comment
#12 by Tom Strickland on March 4, 2010 - 5:42 pm
Reply Quote
“We’ve known about this re-translation issue since 1989…” That’s longer than the gestation period of the elephant, and longer than our Lord’s earthly ministry! This incredible period of not knowing has undoubtedly increased anxiety in those people who have been paying attention for twenty one years! Is this what Jesus had in mind when he said “Do this in remembrance of me”?
Report Comment
#13 by Fr. Allan McDonald on March 4, 2010 - 8:39 pm
Reply Quote
That’s why I’m saying to all those who want to continue to stall this thing, get it out to the people and let’s get over it and do it. It has been way too long and we don’t need any more delays, anxiety abounds and unnecessarily so. And aren’t we suppose to be adult Catholics since the Second Vatican Council–aren’t adults suppose to be able to deal with change and even imperfect change? Change is a constant as well as imperfection. Adults normally should be able to handle that if they are mature. Are Catholics mature enough to be obedient to the change that for sure is coming and too long delayed? Pray tell, I hope so!
Report Comment
#14 by Scott Pluff on March 4, 2010 - 6:27 pm
Reply Quote
I do not see how this or any translation will curtail abuses in those rare instances where they occur. If someone is bent on ad libbing the text or doing strange things during Mass the missal itself will not come to life and slap him. That’s where I come in…
Report Comment
#15 by Rita Ferrone on March 4, 2010 - 8:45 pm
Reply Quote
Poor Jerry. Reduced from Doctor of Ministry to Spin Doctor.
Report Comment
#16 by Alan Hommerding on March 8, 2010 - 11:32 am
Reply Quote
I really think this kind of glib gag name-calling is remarkably uncharitable and beneath the tone of this blog. If you read the penultimate paragraph of Jerry’s “Gotta Sing Gotta Pray” post, you’ll see he is no spin doctor. The direct and clear and honest communication he gave of the content of that evening and of how his own life of faith has been altered by this experience were anything but spin; one might offer that it was, indeed, exemplary ministry.
(An hour later) Thanks, Anthony for the clarification – the shortcomings of communicating in the blogosphere!
Report Comment
#17 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on March 8, 2010 - 11:42 am
Reply Quote
Alan – thanks for your comment. I need to reply right away because I know from personal correspondence that Rita meant it as humor, and as commiseration that we in the ministry have to work so hard to put a good face on this. Then she asked if we should delete it because it would be misunderstood as criticism, and my (mis)judgment was that it can stay. So I take blame for the decision.
Report Comment
I think we all agree that Jerry does great ministerial work!
Peace, brother,
Anthony
#18 by Karl Liam Saur on March 8, 2010 - 12:33 pm
Reply Quote
Unfortunately, commiseration expressed in this manner very very often comes across as group self-pity on the Internet. One sees it with great frequency on Fr Z’s blog, for example, and progressives are no more immune to it than he is. In fact, the resemblance is deeply striking at times.
Report Comment
#19 by Kathy Pluth on March 4, 2010 - 9:10 pm
Reply Quote
I think the new translation is likely to make ad libbing fade away. It seems to me that the new expressions cannot be said in casual tones, or in the same way as any formal public discourse. It doesn’t sound like a speech or a play or an announcement. It sounds vocative.
When speaking to a crowd, Fr. may well feel capable of making the text his own. But when speaking to God in somewhat elevated, studied diction, ad libbing would be quite a bit more difficult, and might even seem out of place.
Report Comment
#20 by Jeffrey Herbert on March 5, 2010 - 7:28 am
Reply Quote
Indeed, one might even say that that was an intentional aspect of these translations…
Report Comment
#21 by Scott Pluff on March 5, 2010 - 6:46 pm
Reply Quote
This may be true in some cases, but I’m not totally convinced. If a celebrant presently changes “The Lord be with you” to “My brothers and sisters, the Lord is with you,” then what would stop him from continuing that goofy adaptation with the new text? Or the nerve-grating “Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ…” ? Or “for the praise and glory of God’s name and the good of all the Church”? I guess that will become “good of all the holy Church” still leaving out “his.” If pastors are wont to ad lib, who will stop them? If congregations are wont to remove masculine pronouns, who will stop them? The new or the old GIRM didn’t stop many congregations from standing through the Eucharistic Prayer.
On a side note, how many pastors will continue saying “let us proclaim the mystery of faith”? How many will not switch to the new “that my sacrifice and yours” and not say “our sacrifice”? Not out of spite but out of habit. If I were a betting man…
Report Comment
#22 by Fr. Allan McDonald on March 6, 2010 - 5:36 am
Reply Quote
The only way to stop “ad libbing” is to celebrate the Mass in Latin. I’ve tried to ad lib by accident, it doesn’t work! But there is no stopping priests even now to sing/say, Mystery of Faith, Pray…that my sacrifice and yours… and Behold the Lamb of God…Blessed are those called to the Supper of the Lamb. In most cases the current Sacramentary allows for these or “similar” words at certain points and certainly many priests and bishops take advantage of that in all the places I suggest above–so no reason not to do the new now.
Report Comment
#23 by Lynne Gonzales on March 6, 2010 - 12:30 pm
Reply Quote
Why is pronouncing the exact words (which are translations of translations of translations & we don’t even have the originals!) so all-fired important? The Roman Missal shouldn’t be a tome of magical incantations…but that is what it is rapidly becoming.
God gave us knowledge, brains, language…if I educate my child to think & given him multiple languages, I would want my child to use all that training and intellectual/spiritual faculties…why are we denying this to the Children of God??
Report Comment
#24 by Fr. Allan McDonald on March 6, 2010 - 2:31 pm
Reply Quote
Liturgical abuse is out there and it is worse than what you describe as “magical incantations.” For your reading and video enjoyment?
Report Comment
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2010/03/sweet-jesus-have-mercy-on-them.html
#25 by Ian Williams on March 6, 2010 - 3:45 pm
Reply Quote
Lynne,
Our faith comes to us from a developing tradition that is two millenia old. The liturgy, the ordinary means by which we encounter God, is part of that tradition. We should therefore celebrate it in the form in which it is given to us, not as a ‘magical incantation’, but out of respect for the process of development through which it has been transmitted to us, the product of two thousand years of prayer and thought.
Report Comment
#26 by Scott Pluff on March 6, 2010 - 8:20 pm
Reply Quote
That’s ritual – doing the same things and saying the same words in the same way repeatedly because they carry a deep meaning that over time unfolds in the heart and mind. In my experience, when a presider monkeys around with the ritual texts it distracts people from praying and calls attention to the celebrant – look how creative/progressive/interesting/clever he is! This is not the point of a ritual action. If you want endless creativity, go to a non-liturgical church where they start each week with a blank sheet of paper and reinvent the whole shebang anytime they like. That approach has its merits, but it’s not ritual, it’s not liturgical, and it’s certainly not Catholic.
Report Comment
#27 by Gideon Ertner on March 6, 2010 - 6:44 pm
Reply Quote
Ms. Gonzales, ever since the beginning the Church has never used ordinary, everyday language to pray to God. Individual Christians may use such language as much as they please in their private prayer, but the Church’s solemn liturgical prayer – our common prayer as God’s people – is another matter. For this the Church has always used a lofty and poetical vocabulary rich in nuance and meaning, whether the language used was Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Old Church Slavonic or any other.
Even the 16th century reformers who were so keen on using the vernacular never dared nor wanted to drag the language of their vernacularized liturgy down to the language used in everyday social interaction. The English Cranmer used when composing his liturgy was quite far from the English spoken in the shop down the road.
Report Comment
#28 by Cody C. Unterseher on March 11, 2010 - 8:58 pm
Reply Quote
That is absolutely not true, and I for one have grown tired of folks invoking a past that never was to prop-up their favorite hermeneutic, whether it be of rupture or of continuity. The fact is that the history of liturgy is immensely diverse, and reveals patterns of both continuity and disruption.
As for Archbishop Cranmer, well, he called both God and his horse “thou.” The language of the 1549 and 1552 Books of Common Prayer was formal — not the hackneyed slang of “the shop down the road” — but it was by no means “sacral” or unfamiliar.
To my knowledge, nobody is calling for informal glibby slang in the latest liturgical translations. Strong, clear, powerful, beautiful and accurate translations are desired by all, and on all sides of the debate. Whether or not that has to be “sacral” English is a point of contention, and scholars remain divided over whether or not LA 43 subverts the stated intent of the Council fathers in SC 21 and 34.
Report Comment
#29 by Don Marlette on March 7, 2010 - 9:43 am
Reply Quote
Being a liturgist in this raging storm of controversy has certainly been a test of faith, to say the least. In fact everyone involved in the process, from lay person to pope is surely experiencing this in some way. I would say that this is a positive fruit to all this.
I admit that I have grown weary of reading/hearing the same arguments both pro and con being restated ad infinitum. Bludgeoning one another with arguments expecting change is much like one spouse trying to change the other in a marriage: it just won’t work. Decisions have been made, and faith–weak though it may be at times–would seem to be the proper response.
(On a side note, I am surprised that this degree of concern and argument did not accompany the implementation of the revised lectionary, which could easily have been perceived as imposed rather suddenly upon the laity without preparation or catechesis.)
Report Comment