Roman Missal coverage: call for reader input

Did you know that a new English translation of the Roman Missal is coming out? And that there is some controversy around it? Oh, who told you?

Pray Tell has already given a bit of coverage to the missal. (Okay, you noticed.) We’d like your input on what sort of coverage you would like to see here in the future.

We’re at a new juncture. The final text is at the publishers. The altar missals and congregational resources are in preparation. Implementation in the U.S. is scheduled for Advent 2011.

Some people think we should put any misgivings or hurt feelings behind us and focus now on the smoothest possible implementation of the missal. Other people probably think we should all lie down on the pavement in front of the chancery and go on a hunger fast until they call the missal off. Yet other people think the conversation has already turned to how the new missal text will be revised and corrected.

What do you think?

Would you like to see more or less treatment of the final text? More or less comparison to 1973, 1997, or 2008 versions? More or less critique of the final text? More or less discussion of its good qualities? More or less comparison to the Latin?

Would you like to see more or less discussion of issues of power and authority? More or less critique of the translation process? More or less discussion of possible structural reforms for future translations?

Would you like to see more or less coverage of resistance to the new translation – e.g. petitions, resolutions, statements?

Would you like to see more or less coverage of how the implementation goes? More or less coverage of how preparations are being made, what sort of workshops and events are being held? More or less discussion of how best to implement the missal?

What else? Other thoughts?

Would-be commenters please note: the only question here is which issues should be covered at Pray Tell. Try to stick to that, and avoid getting into the issues themselves. Tell us, for example, that you do or don’t want 2010 to be compared to 1997. But don’t start doing that comparison and debating the relative merits of those two versions.

If you are more comfortable sending input privately, please feel free to email it to awruff@csbsju.edu.

Fire away.

Editor

Katharine E. Harmon, Ph.D., edits the blog, Pray Tell: Worship, Wit & Wisdom.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

86 responses to “Roman Missal coverage: call for reader input”

  1. David Haas

    There are so many possibilities.

    For me, I would love to hear about how at this juncture, how are people in our congregations responding to the news of all of this; what the response has been to them from those of us in leadership; and ideas and strategies for how we can make this transition and new chapter as positive as possible, and holding our integrity high at the same time.

    I hope I did this right, Fr. Anthony!

    Reply
  2. Steven Koop

    Fr. Anthony,

    I have been a reader of the blog for approximately three months but this is my first comment (for that matter it is the first time I have ever contributed to a blog).

    I have two suggestions:

    I appreciated reading the first portion of the transcript of the talk by Jeremy Driscoll and I look forward to the second portion. Whenever possible please publish material from individuals close to the process of producing the new English translation. While the dialogue between those willing to offer comments is interesting to read I believe I need, as much as possible, to read “source material” in order to form my own thoughts.

    As the final document becomes available please consider publishing articles that take text through the process from Latin to the current English to the new translation. I found that part of the Driscoll transcript very interesting. I am a permanent deacon and I think it is fairly likely that the people in my parish will not pay too much attention to how we got there. I think it is more likely that they will take note of what they hear and ask me “why did they change that?” or “what’s that all about?” I would like to be able to respond to those questions to the best of my ability.

    Thanks!

    Steven Koop

    Reply
  3. Henry Balkwill

    I really do believe we should be kicking up more of an intellectual fuss. The people of the Church are not happy and it’s time that the hierarchy heard us on an intellectual level.

    Reply
    1. Graham Wilson

      Yes!

      Reply
      1. Lynn Thomas

        Amen! Fiat! Yes! Ja! Et cetera, and with great emphasis.

        LOTS of intellectual fuss.

    2. Joe O'Leary

      Agreed!

      Reply
    3. Jeffrey Herbert

      “Intellectual Fuss”? I thought that’s what has been going on here for the past year…

      And not all “people of the Church” are unhappy… quite far from it. Recall that there would be no controversy if that were true…

      Reply
  4. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    Just compare 2010 to the Latin MR 2002/3 and to the English 1973, forget about 1997 and 2008 English.
    It would be nice to read about how the implementation goes and how the successful ones were accomplished.
    Issues of power and authority are less important. Some things are best kept in the internal forum and dealt with privately. Deal with issues rather than personalities and from a constructive point of view. Hope that’s helpful.

    Reply
    1. Lynn Thomas

      Pretend those earlier efforts never happened or have anything to offer? Ignore abuse of power and authority?

      Fr. Allen, those things sound very much like activities the Church deplores, very publicly and with great vigor, everywhere but in her own house. And for the Church to deal with things privately has a really, deeply, horribly ugly recent history.

      I cannot agree with what you propose here. The issues may be minor when compared to the ugliness of the sex scandal, but they are pretty central to Church life just the same.

      Reply
    2. Todd Flowerday

      I can’t agree either. But fortunately, we do have fairly good ICEL work that is clearly superior to MR3, and we don’t need to look at 1998. My suggestion is to consider the rites already in use: 1983, 1988, and 1989.

      Reply
    3. Gregg Smith

      Oh dear, that sounds like what our Bishops did with the abuse cases – everything dealt with privately.

      Reply
    4. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      I don’t know what your parishes are like, but if I were to start comparing texts, why not go all the way back to the 1950’s personal missals that people had which had very nice translations of the Latin Tridentine Mass? It makes no sense that’s why; why muddy the waters of the laity by projecting on to them the concern of a minority of clergy and laity on this blog?
      Comparing the sex abuse scandal to how this translation came about is absolutely absurd.
      Were there missteps with the process of translating? Sure. I would like to know from those in the work place, whether church or secular, who hasn’t made missteps in the process of developing things and who hasn’t been fired or reprimanded for rocking the boat too much. Do we live in la la land just because we’re the Church? And whose opinion about process is absolutely correct and do we place on trial people in an open forum when we all know there are two sides to every story. I know that from counseling people who are on the verge of divorce, each knows for sure they are the victim. So let’s get real.
      Let’s see things on this blog that will help the overwhelming majority of laity who care little of the politics of this translation to accept it when it is mandated in the evening of November 26. We do them and ourselves a great service in the process.

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Herbert

        Let’s see things on this blog that will help the overwhelming majority of laity who care little of the politics of this translation to accept it when it is mandated in the evening of November 26

        Amen, and again.. Amen! Thank you Fr. McDonald for stating rather plainly what I have tried to hammer at for quite a long time now. The majority … a vast majority… of Catholics are not concerned about the political wrangling. If there is a new translation, they want to know the new words and use them because, well, that’s what they’re supposed to do. They won’t be turned away in droves or cause mass protests… they will come to Mass and read the new words and sing the new songs with very little notice.

        This isn’t to minimize the importance of the translation, just I think there is a great error in projecting the strong feelings of specialists on the majority of Catholic faithful who have to follow along in the missalette to say the Creed still.

    5. Jack Nolan

      “Pretend those earlier efforts never happened or have anything to offer? ”

      Strange that those who want to keep talking about 1997 seemed uninterested in RM 1965, the Church’s 1st implementation of Vatican II’s SC.

      Reply
      1. F C Bauerschmidt

        Well one is a matter of translation and the other is a matter of revision of the rite itself, so it seems perfectly possible that one could without inconsistency find one worth talking about and not the other.

  5. Julia Smucker

    Coverage of all of the above sounds good to me. I’m still feeling very uneasy about the whole thing, but I appreciate your willingness to approach it from all possible angles.

    Reply
  6. Jack Rakosky

    I would encourage posts that might get more grassroots people to comment on what is going on, e.g. reactions about training that is being given at various levels, the processes of change at various levels, new music at various levels (e.g. music directors, choir members, people in the parish)..

    In any organizational change, there are the problems of unintended consequences. For example we MAY be getting a lot of new music with the new missal. That could be good or bad. People who think the new music is great will probably decide that having a new missal was a great idea. People who loose their old favorites but don’t get any new ones could be very, very disappointed. They may opt for a different parish, a different denomination, or just stay at home on Sunday.

    Let’s take a concrete example, the “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” is supposed to go (unless one of the many changes in recent months has unchanged this). I am very conscious now how many parishes use this refrain. What are people’s plans for the transition? When do they plan to do it? Do they plan to have any explanation? What do they plan to substitute? Some people may have really come to see this as a standard part of the Mass. They might be rather shaken by the transition. It might be important to begin to collect stories from parishes which have made the transition early.

    Normally posts come and go within a few days. Occasionally people will read and comment on older posts. Perhaps there could be a special category, e.g. Transition Problems that would list issues such as “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” People would be encouraged to log in their experiences, and those of us who are interested could periodically look at those posts to get a sense of what is going on.

    Reply
  7. Jan Larson

    When Peter Jeffery published his excellent but stinging critique of Liturgiam Authentican back in 2004, he predicted that the implementation of this seriously flawed document would result in a translation nightmare accompanied by enormous pastoral problems. He was so very right. But there is no reason to think that there won’t be the same mess with the next re-translation of some liturgical text, like the Lectionary. I think that those who can make a difference, with the assistance of the power of the internet, should be persistent in challenging LA. When the guiding document is off base in the many ways that Jeffery illustrates, then the resulting translations will be dramatically impaired, as we have now seen.

    In addition, we should never cease to be silent about the power grabbing, the secrecy, the lack of transparency and thorough consultation, the disrespect for collegiality and lack of charity that have become footnotes to this awful translation. The people I serve may not really care so much about the words of the opening prayer, but they will care about the dark side of this translation’s history – a story that I am certainly willing to tell as I attempt to sell this new Missal. Serious systemic change will happen when people in the pews begin to realize what’s wrong behind the scenes, and I believe the internet will be the principal tool for the changes we so desperately need. I believe the nearly twenty-two thousand people who joined the What If We Just Said Wait initiative is just a hint of what the reaction will be next time.

    Reply
  8. Ray MacDonald

    Unless I missed it, have we seen anything of the final translation text such as the “leaks” that turned up on Wikispooks? Some analysis of what exactly will be in the parishes come next November would be helpful.
    Also I disagree that discussion of any “moot” translation such as 1998 or 2008 should be ruled out. They are part of the record now and should not be swept under the rug.
    I’d like to see some discussion of what’s happening in Canada, where we’ve heard zero. Also is there no more recent account of how things are going in South Africa? How about New Zealand?

    Reply
  9. Fr John Farley

    I’d appreciate a walk through some of the upcoming texts with an eye to singing them well and intelligibly. Given the stilted English, whatever the prayer says, what am I, as presider, trying to draw people into? The current Sacramentary includes settings of prefaces and eucharistic prayers. I gather the new Missal will not. And I suppose I can just make it up as I go along, but I’d appreciate some help.

    Are the set prayers for Sunday along with antiphons supposed to “frame” the interpretation of the various readings or highlight some portion of the liturgy for homiletics?

    I’d also like a directory of materials people are using or producing with various audiences, beyond the USCCB and other publishers’ stuff: links, clips, etc.

    If particular communities or dioceses are experiencing blowback, what’s causing it? If implementation seems especially smooth in other place, what helped?

    And some relative judgments on the new music GIA, OCP, WLP, and the rest are putting out. What’s easy to learn, easy to teach, fun, jazzy, quiet, overdone, youthful, would be nice.

    Well, that’s all I can think of for now.

    Thanks Anthony and company!

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      JF – all the prefaces and EPs will be set to music in the upcoming missal. (They had to have something to do at all those ICEL music committee meetings!) Go to the ICEL website and you’ll see all the music under “News.”
      awr

      Reply
      1. John Farley

        Then it must be the orations about which I’m thinking.

        As for the ICEL music, while the prefaces are singable, I’ve never really been able to sing the EPs. I hope ICEL’s efforts are better this time around.

  10. Graham Wilson

    Let’s look ahead to the next translation, remembering 1973, 1998 and 2010.

    Let’s analyse the translation rules. Let’s get back to basics.

    Let’s look at inculturation.

    Let’s look at what’s wrong with the Latin text and how it can be improved.

    Let’s look at the possibilities of local English language rites.

    Let’s look at the reasons for retaining 1973 for those who would like to continue to use it.

    Let’s try to be helpful to the English-speaking bishops and ICEL.

    Let’s not ignore Church politics because power manipulation needs to be exposed to the light.

    Let’s not be afraid to say what needs to be said, gently but firmly, even if it’s not popular or unpleasant or upsets those with vested interests or annoys the Left or the Right.

    Let’s use the levelling power of the internet for benevolent change.

    And in doing all the above let’s never forget what it’s all about… the Good News.

    Reply
    1. Linda reid

      Thank you, Graham! This is a most comprehensive, thoughtful and realistic post. Your words of “gently”,”firmly”,”benevolent” and, most importantly, “Good News” are words that we should keep in the forefront of our remarks!

      Reply
  11. Crystal Watson

    Would you like to see more or less treatment of the final text? … More or less critique of the final text? More or less discussion of its good qualities? More or less comparison to the Latin?
    – more of the above.

    Would you like to see more or less discussion of issues of power and authority?
    – more of this too. It’s really interesting to read an insider view of this topic.

    Maybe this is a dopey concern, but I’d also like to read about the connection between the translations, the Latin, the English, and how the language of the misal affects our relationship with God.

    Reply
  12. Dunstan Harding

    To date there has been a lot of rumor-mongering about the final text. Just what are we getting? Can we start with the OFFICIAL and FINAL text of the Roman Missal (3rd ed), whenever that will be?

    Can we compare it to what the other English speaking churches have in the way of a FINAL text for the missal? I understand there will be a few slight differences (perhaps not so few either).

    I know this is asking for too much, but the notes, diaries, summaries, a collection of reactions from ALL participants in the production of the missal from ICEL, Vox Clara, the CDW. This can be instructive and an excellent way of seeing how enculturation is treated and worked into the fabric of the liturgical sources. Who has an agenda to advance and why? Who is trying to block an agenda and why?

    The reactions of members of the hierarchy from outside ICEL, CDW, and Vox Clara from the time the respective episcopal conferences sent their completed drafts to Rome, and what is FINALLY approved. Lots a luck getting that, I’m sure.

    The Church’s biggest problem isn’t what is finally implemented, but the fact it has been surrounded by so much back-biting, vindictiveness, dismissals, skullduggery of every kind. Reports of that could sour even the most disinterested of the laity.

    Maybe it is just as well the faithful, for the most part, continue to snooze through it all. It isn’t always good to see how sausage is being made, to paraphrase Prince Bismarck.

    Reply
  13. Jonathan Sullivan

    Are discussion, critique, and coverage the only options? How about practical advice?

    As someone who is assisting with implementation at the diocesan level, I’d like to see 1) shared best practices for implementation for a variety of audiences; 2) and handouts/worksheets/etc. to use with those audiences or that will help them in their work.

    (Yes, I am aware of the variety of materials available from FDLC, USCCB, LTP, and all the other acronyms. But they aren’t covering everything. My office is already talking about creating materials for school teachers to use with their students.)

    Reply
  14. Paul Schlachter

    Fr. Anthony,

    Just stay the course. No one who has posted here has been scandalized by your approach. We already have websites dedicated to beautiful liturgy, to best practices, to official press releases. We have very few places of this visibility where transparency is the norm, and where insiders’ reports can be passed on with credibility and a respect for anonymity – on a very frequent basis.

    Many of us have benefited from these exchanges and contribute to them. Some of us are clinicians and interact with thousands of people. Others like myself have very limited scope for our reasoned views. But we are all willing to put forward our responses to the latest changes foisted upon us from above. Maybe we can do our small part to resist and decry the way it has been done, because it deserves to be resisted and decried – at least as a process.

    What happened to you in your capacity as a chant master has happened in various ways to all of us. I speak of the marginalization of our views and our experience. But we love our home the church too much to remain silent and on the margins.

    Reply
  15. Joe O'Leary

    Comparison with the 1997 texts is what is most crucial. We need to see how good our liturgy could be, not just how flat it has been, and how horrible it is about to become.

    What I would most like to see here is more detailed analyses of the texts.

    Reply
  16. Karl Liam Saur

    As critical as I have been of the process, I do not believe that topics that encourage the stewing in the cultivation of resentment at others is a worthy occupation of time. The only past-oriented enterprise perhaps worth some time is coming to understand how *we* (or *our side*) may have contributed to what has come to pass, so that we ourselves might learn from that in present- and future-oriented work.

    I believe topics should be present focused (on implementation) and future focused (what processes should be used in the future, for MR4 and its vernacular translations).

    Reply
  17. Jack Nolan

    I’d like to see more comparison to 1973 and no comparison to the 1997 version. I would like to see far more discussion of the new translation’s good qualities.

    I’d like to see far less discussion of issues of power and authority and the translation process which seems out-of-place because the process giving us 1973 is never brought up for comparison. I’d like to see far less discussion of possible structural reforms for future translations.

    I’d like to see less coverage of resistance to the new translation – e.g. petitions, resolutions, statements. We don’t need to support, sustain, or publicize a Lefebvrism of the left.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing some coverage of how the implementation goes without any appearance of approving or applauding resistance to it. I’d like to see more coverage of how preparations are being made and what sort of workshops and events are being held. I look forward to far more discussion of how best to implement the missal in a variety of settings.

    Please, lets avoid complaining.

    Reply
  18. Mary Rouse

    “Would you like to see more or less coverage of how the implementation goes? More or less coverage of how preparations are being made, what sort of workshops and events are being held? More or less discussion of how best to implement the missal?”

    I should certainly like to learn more about what preparations are being made for the introduction of the new translation. A straw poll of people in my (UK) parish reveals that a few parishioners recall our PP saying something about this, but they have no idea that it is imminent, or that it will mean changes to the people’s responses at Mass. Many were completely oblivious to the fact that we will be getting a new translation, and just a few have been following the debates about it with interest. I read a comment somewhere on this blog that ‘the people’ aren’t happy about the new translation. I’m concerned that the vast majority of the ‘Sunday Mass’ Catholics, have not even registered the fact that there is a new translation on the horizon. I have no idea what formation is going to be done at grass roots level. Perhaps the intention is to simply slip the new translation in and hope no-one will notice! So, more about what is being done to prepare would be of great interest to me.

    Reply
  19. Jeffrey Pinyan

    +JMJ+

    I guess I’d like to see if there can be more balance. Can we hear about people welcoming the new translation (warts and all)? Can we hear about suggestions for implementation?

    I don’t mind comparing the old unofficial personal missal translations from the 1950’s and the official (?) 1965 English missal and the 1973 official translation and the 1997 proposed translation and the 2008 proposed translation and the 2010 final (?) translation. I’d actually like to know why some of you (e.g. Fr. Allen, Jack Nolan) don’t want to talk about those middle texts at all.

    I’m not as interested in MR4 as I am in MR3, because I don’t want MR3’s implementation to fall flat because we’ve got our sights aimed several years ahead, at what could be, rather than at the here-and-now.

    Personally, I would like the powers-that-be to reconsider the 2008 text. I’d also like more Latin in the average person’s experience of the Mass (like Vatican II said…). But I’m not going to make these points of conversation on these threads, unless threads pop up that bring up those possibilities.

    Reply
    1. Joe O'Leary

      “Can we hear about people welcoming the new translation (warts and all)? ”

      If anyone was welcoming it we’d surely have heard on this website. Do you know of any warm welcomers, apart from Bt Serratelli?

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Herbert

        If anyone was welcoming it we’d surely have heard on this website.

        This is perhaps the most astounding comment I have yet seen here. This is definitely a case of minnows swimming in a school –
        All they see are other minnows, so their world is one in
        which the minnows swimming alongside them are the only thing they know of. If separated from the school, they swim in circles or back and forth until they die. For them, the world is nothing but the other minnows around them.

        There may be a lack of stories about the warm reception of the translation because at this point it hasn’t been implemented yet, so there is no reception of the texts at all save for a few locations where it was leaked out under ill conditions. Most people, most Catholics have no idea there is such a thing as a new translation.Right now all we have are the opinions of specialists, those involved in the process and commenting pundits from both the progressive and traditional camps trying to give the impression that
        their point of view is the dominant one.

        As for “warm receptions” that we know about… the story about the Diocese of Leeds moving the implementation up to September out of anticipation might be the latest example.

        The Diocese of Oklahoma City,
        The Diocese of New York,
        The Diocese of Venice, FL
        St. Louis
        Minneapolis
        All seems to be moving forward with very positive efforts right now. And Corpus Christi TX… The Diocese of New Orleans…the list of Diocese whose Bishops have made
        statements in support of the New Translation and who are taking on the implementation with a very positive effort goes on and on with each passing day.
        If your opinion is “Well yes, but those are all Bishops.. what about the people!”,I would say we’ll just have to wait and see. My guess is that the people will follow good leadership.

        Are there detractors? You bet there are! But to say that because there are detractors there is no positive reception is…

  20. Roger Petrich

    Right now my parish has five Mass settings in long term memory, changing with the seasons of the year, and the solemnity of the day. With Advent 2011 all this will be lost. I am interested keeping our congregation’s voice in what could be a bumpy time as we all go back to holding a “new script” in our hands – after praying for years with hands free. These are “music” concerns more than “text” concerns but it will fall on music ministers to make this transition a success. Transitioning to the new music is the biggest concern for me [and choosing whatever that music might be].

    Reply
  21. Jordan Zarembo

    There is a great need to isolate and compare the 2002 and 1969 Missale Romanum typical Latin editions with Trent and earlier in a sterile laboratory where an analysis of vernacular translations are excluded until a solid cross-historical Latin liturgical source code has been established. Otherwise, endless subjective arguments over the vernacular float about a subjective universe without rigorous proofs. Meticulous examination and reconstruction should have been publicly undertaken before any discussion of vernaculars. No time is better than today to reconstruct the code even if subjective arguments about the vernacular are already at a boiling pace.

    Some think that vernaculars live apart from the Latin past. Yet every theoretical construct has theoretical antecedents. There are no fractals and no chaos theory without simple arithmetic. The subjective feel and personal desire epitomized in debates over the vernacular are meaningless without dispassionate Latin “word crunching” with some intermediate translation and explanation in English or another modern language.

    A wissenschaft of the modern liturgy source texts is desperately needed but conspicuously absent.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      I’m not entirely sure what “a solid cross-historical Latin liturgical source code” means, but those words together make me think of the service Fr. Zuhlsdorf provides when he shows where the prayer came from (and not just what it says). His identification of prayers (or pieces of prayers) from the Veronese and Leonine and Gelatinous sacramentaries goes a long way to understanding why the prayers have the vocabulary they do, and thus why the prayers have the themes they do.

      It’s helpful to know these things, because I think that this knowledge better informs our interpretation and translation of those prayers.

      Is that what you were talking about?

      (And yes, “Gelatinous” is a joke.)

      Reply
    2. Jordan Zarembo

      Fr. Z’s blog posts are on the right track. Nevertheless the project must be expanded from brief observations towards a series of comparative studies. There is a deep necessity to strip prayers down to the last particle and rebuild them in order to gauge the correspondence between the Latin textual tradition and vernacular possibilities. Vernacular worship for its own sake often emulates historical liturgical texts without the constant and relentless philological scrutiny that must gird any translation project.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Jordan I agree with. It was my reading of Fr. Z that helped me to see the flaws of the 1973 missal translation. I actually thought for many years that the translation was faithful to the original Latin meaning that the Latin was like our English especially as it concerned the Gloria, Credo and Sanctus. But Fr. Z’s explanation of the prayers and their history, especially the orations are very eye opening.

    3. Joe O'Leary

      Good heavens, you sound like a structuralist!

      Reply
  22. Audrey Seah

    I don’t think we need more about the merits of 2010 – this has been covered by other blogs. Unless there’s something new others may have missed. Comparison of the 2010 to what other english speaking churches have would be interesting though.

    I’d like more comparison with the 1997 translation. I think its important for those working in parishes to be aware of this version, because it might inevitably arise in discussions.

    I’d like to see more coverage of the implementation, resistance or not, to the new translation, especially those that offer new insights and include suggestions for solutions to improve the process, or spur on such discussions. I don’t think discussion of 1973 process is necessary because the culture that received it then is so different from today’s. Maybe some discussion on performatism & digimodernism today & its effects on the reception would be interesting.

    I’d like to see results and sentiments of those who have been to workshops about the new translation. I hope people giving the workshops are surveying their audience and releasing the data.

    I’d like to see more discussion/ reviews on new music written, if there are innovations.

    Reply
  23. Bill deHaas

    Some excellent suggestions (except for Fr. Allan’s desire to skip over the obvious historical process and personalities that got us to this point)

    May I add:
    – not sure there are available in english but would like to see some comparisons to other language conferences; their timelines and MRs that they are using e.g. the French and Italians use an MR that has many options; inserts; etc. How did they get to that point and the english did not?
    – the current and pending lectionary translation project
    – feedback from New Zealand, input from Canada, Australia, South Africa
    – continue the LTP input
    – can we highlight ongoing expert input from key theology and liturgy schools e.g. St. John’s; Notre Dame; CUA, Boston College
    – can we get input from significant archdiocesan or USCCB liturgical efforts; how have they worked
    – continue to profile key liturgical published works on current issues
    – can we get more input from linguists, biblical scholars in terms of the translation challenges and principles
    – challenges for areas such as bilingual masses, parishes; how can liturgy address peace & justice issues
    – input from the NA Catechumens Forum

    Thanks for this ministry – enjoy learning and being able to ask questions.

    Reply
  24. Ed Stoops

    Yes, Bill, I agree.
    I hope I’m wrong but it seems to me that much of the “translation” process focused on words rather than meaning. I would like to see those on this blog who are scholars and latinists discuss some of the meanings we encounter in the Mass texts. For example, I found the discussion of “Lord of hosts” and “sabaoth” very enlightening. “And with your spirit” is bound to receive a lot of discussion in our parishes. Can scholars do better than say it means “with the spirit you received at ordination?” And if not, what sense does it make for the Lord to be with one’s ordained spirit?
    Give us paraphrases and synonyms of English words used in the texts. Explain what a word or phrase has meant in different historical periods. What popped into a third century Roman’s head when he heard “evangelium”? Was this a common Latin word by then? Did comprehension require he know Greek? Are the English terms “good news” and “gospel” true synonyms? What conational baggage do Latin terms carry that isn’t apparent in English?
    And, finally, what have other languages done in their translations that might help us understand our English terms better.
    No matter how bad the translation is, it will surely be a good thing if it prompts us to delve deeper into the meaning of the Mass texts.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      +JMJ+

      I’m neither a scholar not a latinist, but I’ve done research and attempted to compile explanations and information about the words we will use in the new translation.

      “God of hosts (sabaoth)” and “enter under my roof” are two phrases (of many) I’ve found explanations for. I’ve explained “consubstantial” in two paragraphs on this blog before. I’ve delved into the preference for “the communion of the Holy Spirit” over “the fellowship” of the same. These explanations are available in a series of books of mine on the new translation, although I’m happy to make that information available on my blog as well.

      Fr. John Zuhlsdorf looks into the cultural meaning of a lot of the Latin words at his blog. And I think Pope Benedict does the same from time to time in his homilies; I think he spoke about the meaning of “evangelium” last year around Easter time. I believe he spoke about the Roman Canon on Holy Thursday.

      Reply
  25. Roger Pettich

    I like what Ed #36 says. But I also am aware that the Presiders in our parish continually “adapt” whatever text they have in front of them, except for our one priest for whom English is a second language. The change from Latin to English was so swift [now! at last we can understand the Mass], that it will continue to be a difficult sell to plead “this will help us understand the Mass better”. [though I truly hope it will!]

    Reply
  26. Mitch Powers

    Since the decision has been made and in the best interest of the Mass and the Church I would like to hear more about the successes than failures instituted by those against the new translation. Bringing it closer to Latin and even “Latinizing” it seems right and just. We are the Latin Church. I have never understood the opposition to Latin, its’ structure and beauty. It is yours, ours, as Catholics. The Jewish Faith has Hebrew and they for the most part love it, cherish it, and maintain it. Why is that so difficult for Catholics? Our Missals may make us read the prayers in English on the other side of the page but doesn’t that make us pay more attention? I think we tend to drift a little when things are too simple. Afterall Mass is a lifetime of mystery and discovery, not to be totally learned from 10:00 Am to 11:00 AM. We have lost that sense and goal. If you don’t want to learn a word that is unfamiliar by simply going home and googling it then that is just laziness. If we got a bill in the mail and did not understand something the first thing we would do is hit the net to better understand. It is a good tool for that. Why can’t our Faith invoke the same in us? Even if not perfect it is so obvious that much of the new translation is better. I’d like to hear more about that. More about how people are joining together, not falling apart. Otherwise it gets as depressing as the nightly news. And as Catholics, the Magesterium has asked us to support them, and so we should. I am sure that invocation of the “M” word will offend many, but that is what they ask. And as long as we are Catholics we will have a Magesterium who will always ask things of us. That is part of our Catholic identity, if that goes away we will no longer be Catholics. Love and Trust in the Holy Father, he knows what he is doing. This translation did not come overnight as did many changes in the 70’s. It has been studied and well thought out. Let’s hear more about success, please.

    Reply
    1. Joe O'Leary

      “Let’s hear more about success, please.”

      As Cardinal George memorably interjected after Serratelli’s celebration of a “historic moment” in November 2008: “Not yet!”

      Reply
    2. F C Bauerschmidt

      And as Catholics, the Magesterium has asked us to support them, and so we should. I am sure that invocation of the “M” word will offend many, but that is what they ask.

      I ask this as a genuine question: is the directive to use a particular translation an exercise of the Church’s magisterium? What truths of faith or morals are being taught in this directive? This seems to me more an exercise of jurisdiction than of magisterium.

      Reply
  27. Claire Mathieu

    I’d like to read more about differences between countries. For example, why is there no prayer of the faithful in France on weekdays, unlike the US? Why do people only receive communion under one species in France in most parishes, unlike the US? Why do we renew our baptismal promises by saying “we believe” in one parish and “I believe” in the next parish? It seems strange to get hung up on one word or ritual as if it was vital to do it a certain way, when an entire country does it differently.

    I am very curious to hear about what is happening in South Africa.

    I would like to hear about the upcoming new translation of the French Mass, if anyone knows anything about it.

    I would like to see commentaries of the new missal prayers as the year goes on, that doesn’t only point out errors or misleading words and structures, but also explains what the prayer is supposed to mean.

    Reply
    1. Graham Wilson

      Claire – “I am very curious to hear about what is happening in South Africa.”

      Not very much, except many priests don’t stick to the new words and use their own forms based on their memory of the old, particularly the introduction to the Our Father and the Orate Fratres. Some parishes have dropped the Nicene Creed altogether in favour of the Apostles Creed.

      Reply
  28. F C Bauerschmidt

    If I recall correctly, the Ratio translationis is also being “tweaked,” presumably to allow for some of the deviations in the coming translation from LA‘s principles. It would be interesting to see those changes parsed.

    Reply
  29. Rob Klant

    From the grassroots (or, at best, a mere worm chomping happily among the grassroots), I’ll admit I haven’t been following this closely.

    But, I am rather dismayed by all this talk of “power” and “politics” and the new translation being “foisted” upon the faithful.

    If the history of the Church has taught us anything it’s that she will be eternally “working out” (tinkering with?) our salvation, even down to the last jot and tittle of the liturgy, to better or worst effect.

    I’m less convinced that “transparency” and “accountability” are goods in themselves. Even in the natural realm, more good can often be accomplished by secrecy, confidentiality, privilege, and discretion. At most, “transparency” may be the means to an end, but if that end is the tyranny of a majority then it’s no good at all.

    Reply
    1. Joe O'Leary

      “If the history of the Church has taught us anything it’s that she will be eternally “working out” (tinkering with?) our salvation,”

      hmm, the Inquisition?

      Reply
    2. Jeffrey Herbert

      Rob;

      I like how you think, although you are really going out on a limb here with such a point of view! Have a strong constitution! I agree with your view of transparency and accountability. These are not, or at least haven’t been historically, the Catholic way of doing things. I have asked here but have yet received no answer to the question; What exactly would be the process for getting “popular input” from the Catholic faithful for a translation? How would this be helpful? Would it make for a better translation? I have my doubts as you seem to also…

      I think that a lot of people are just repulsed at the idea (the fact?) that the Catholic Church is not, and probably cannot be, a democratic institution. It is, well, a very hierarchical monarchy at least, and if one is bold enough to accept that the Pope is the holder of the Keys to the Kingdom, then one has to rethink the popular view of “collegiality” a bit. There must be a real temptation to exercise that “bind on heaven what is bound on earth” power from time to time. Patient and very restrained man the Pope is!

      Reply
  30. Philip Endean SJ

    I’d welcome discussion about how we maintain integrity as Catholic Christians amid this calamitous situation. For me, that involves serious reflection on the boundary, given the misguidedness of what we are being asked to implement, between culpable collusion and praiseworthy (or at least permissible) obedience. There is also a crucial difference between this change and other magisterial initiatives, at least for the Church’s public representatives. If you find moral or doctrinal teachings difficult, you can still function in ministry without being forced directly to express an assent which you do not have. This won’t apply when the difficult material will be thrust in our faces on a weekly or daily basis.

    Reply
    1. Claire Mathieu

      That would be fascinating to watch. I hear (on many subjects) some voices saying: “Rome has spoken, now you are not a true Catholic unless you go along”, and other voices saying: “Rome is clearly wrong, so simply ignore them”. I would love to hear reasoned proposals of a panoply of more nuanced responses. That could also be useful for other difficult situations, not just the new translation.

      Reply
    2. Karl Liam Saur

      The generic notion of “culpable collusion” on the part of diocesan and parochial ministers charged with implementation of these changes should be repudiated in the strongest possible terms.

      Period.

      I can think of few rhetorical gambits that would bring greater discredit and dishonor upon those on the progressive side of things. It’s a red flag of an argument that has lost its tether to reality.

      Reply
      1. Philip Endean SJ

        Karl Liam: why are you quite so strong on this? You are normally a reasonable person. I don’t get it. If my religious superior tells me to keep my mouth shut about, say, some questionable financial practice in a parish where I am working, then if I obey, I am colluding in the questionable practice. And if the practice really isn’t morally right, then I am culpable in so doing. Now, the move from ‘questionable’ to ‘not right’ and its implications are not easy; that seems to me the point worth discussing. I am not at all sure that I can in conscience be an agent of the kind of vandalism against people’s spiritual lives and sense of ecclesial belonging that this outrageous new translation represents. And I also fear that the strain this uncertainty brings will disqualify me as a presider anyway.

      2. Karl Liam Saur

        Philip

        You’ve turned the translation into a shibboleth. (You’re not unique in this way, but it doesn’t make it any more right.) That should be a warning sign to you to reconsider how you are choosing to look at the situation.

      3. Graham Wilson

        Are we expecting ministers who are doing this against their better judgement or against their consciences to use an ecclesiastical version of the Nuremberg defence and shift responsibility and culpability upwards?

        Nothing to do with me, speak to the bishop. Nothing to do with me, speak to the pope. I’m only following orders.

        How good is that?

        Or, as a way out, will they end up hybridizing the Mass as many in South Africa have in the few priests’ parts that have been introduced so far?

        It’s a significant issue for many priests.

      4. F C Bauerschmidt

        I think the implied comparison between using a poor translation and collusion in genocide is perhaps a bit of overkill.

      5. Karl Liam Saur

        Fritz

        Yeah, just a teensy eensy wee bit….

        “Culpable collusion” brings to the image of “Collaborationiste!” to mind.

        I can respect the tenderness of clerical conscience on liturgical matters more when it’s preceded by a broad consensus (that’s not a plurality or mere majority, and silence does not count in favor non-cooperation, as it were) of the laity served (not merely representatives thereof (Catholic representative councils have a tendency to Agree With Father Dearest – deference to the collar can be strong even in the most progressive of intentional Catholic communities), and very much not just the colleagues in ministry).

        Otherwise, the hysteria begs the question of assumptions that merit reconsideration. It’s just doing Vatican II-A in a Vatican I way, with presider as mini-Pio “I Am The Tradition!” Nono. Human beings have a tendency to prefer distant to local tyrants. (In the memorable line from “Fiddler on The Roof”: “May God bless and keep the Tsar . . . far away from us.”)

        That a celebrant had a bishop lay hands and confer Orders on him gives him no greater mission to confect a liturgy according to his individual desiderata than a layperson in the pews. When a celebrant violates his fiduciary role in this regard, he’s given up credibility to critique laity who make up their own liturgical roles in the pews according to their individual consciences. When such a celebrant demonstrates a sincere, non self-serving, desire to accommodate lay desires in complete opposition to his own, then he *might* merit greater credibility on this point. But I won’t hold my breath.

        This smacks to me of old-fashioned clericalism in a flimsy progressive gown.

      6. Jack Nolan

        It is Lefebvrism, it comes primarily from the Left but it is still Lefebvrism.
        I think, however, that ++Lefebvre had a better case than others do according to the 300 year rule. Refusing to celebrate the new translation after it is promulgated seems to risk displaying a clericalist mindset because the liturgy does not belong to the celebrant alone, he is there to offer the approved liturgy of the Church for others. Consider the priest who continued to use the (much loved by me) 1965 RM after 1967 (or 1973) or a priest who uses the original 1973 translation because he likes the word “men” in the consecration formula even though it has been removed. Perhaps unhappy priests can seek an indult to use the 1973 translation for private celebrations but public Masses should be according to the approved contemporary usage.

    3. Philip Endean SJ

      I’m feeling unheard by some of the commentators on this strand. Clearly, a Catholic ethical standpoint involves a readiness to do what authority asks, if necessary against one’s own wishes, preferences or convictions. Equally clearly, this cannot be absolute. Let’s drop the Nazi language (which I did not introduce), and stay with my example of questionable financial practice. Just where are the boundaries? And what side of them is the implementation of this objectively and procedurally objectionable new translation?

      FWIW, I really don’t advocate priests unhappy with this new text setting themselves up as an alternative Pio Nono. But I do wonder if the only thing they can do with integrity is simply to stop celebrating in public.

      Reply
      1. Lynn Thomas

        Fr. Endean,

        I’m sorry you’re feeling unheard. I think the answer to your question is not fixed, but varies with the individual, which makes it all that much harder to answer. Conscience questions get sticky like that, I’m afraid. Friends of mine faced with them have used the ‘sleep at night’ and ‘look in the mirror’ kinds of tests. My most recent test was simpler, since the objectionable conduct by a body of which I was a part was a clear violation of established rules. I couldn’t change it, and I could not be a party to it. Resignation was the only remaining option.

        Sometimes the answer does come down to obey or quit. Marvelously simple, really. But not at all easy.

      2. Claire Mathieu

        Lynn, to counter your comment, I do not think that the link from one person to their job is tight enough for the analogy to quite work. A better analogy would be the link in marriage: if you’re in a dysfunctional marriage, say, your spouse has affairs, and you can neither change it nor accept it, then I do not think that divorce is the only option. An even more extreme analogy would be the link to yourself: if you’ve gotten into an accident, your body no longer functions, and you can neither change it nor accept it, then I do not think that suicide is the only option. When the link is so tight as to be embedded into your very identity, “quitting” might not be an option either; it’s a deceptive simplicity.

      3. Bill deHaas

        Fr. Endean – do support your personal and pastoral issue; it is a serious one. Over the last 20 years have seen numerous decisions, changes, lack of decisions, etc. by the church and its leaders that I can only describe as “complicity”…..but this is a complex topic.
        You well know that the vow of obedience means much more than just following. It is a charism/virtue that requires daily struggle, internal conflict, education, meditation, prayer, and at times significant internal pain.
        Some random thoughts:
        – classmates and priest friends note that some of this depends upon personalities; there are some who can deal with differences, etc. without it creating internal conflict. For some this is not easy and have been described as: “wound too tight”; perfectionist; impatient; etc.
        – yet, too often have experienced some who let things pass by becoming indifferent; as long as they are personally in a good spot, they just let things pass; take no responsibility for larger issue; what we used to call the “Lone Ranger” approach – focus on self; ignore community/diocese
        – some see this process as “dying to self” and letting others i.e. authority figures lead?
        – if nothing else, the sex abuse scandal has shown that the church needs priests/pastors to speak out honestly; this passive-aggressive stance leads to a demoralized clergy; weakens the church; continues an outdated model of obedience; fails in terms of dialogue, respect for others, reasoned debate, principles, and mature growth

        On a different note and specific to this MR3, a personal decision gathers facts, evidence…….there is more than enough evidence to indicate that MR3 does not reach the level of dogma; process violated numerous rights, processes, etc.; is based on documents that are the lowest in terms of authority; has been suggested that the process violates basic canon law and violates the last council. To not respect your conscience seems to be the crucial key.

      4. Lynn Thomas

        Claire,

        Sometimes, the link is that tight. And neither of your analogies is quite fitting, I think, because neither of them is a matter of conscience in the same way. Integrity is a matter of internal consistency. There are limits to how much it can or should tolerate. In my profession, one is expected and required to obey one’s seniors. If one cannot in good conscience to that, one resigns. The price demanded by integrity can be high, but not paying it can be far more costly. This is an internal debate, not really subject to outside judgment, since in the end we have to live with ourselves.

        And please note the definition of ‘quitting’ or ‘resigning’ in the case at hand. Fr. Endean mentioned ‘stop celebrating in public’, not leaving the priesthood [though for some, this might be the last straw, but that’s a different discussion].

      5. Philip Endean SJ

        Thanks to everyone for their comments. Much helpful material here. It seems to me that a proper ‘catechesis’ must not be manipulative enforcement of what authority has decided to insist on, but a serious engagement with the fact that authority is insisting on something that almost no-one seems now happy with.

  31. Terri Miyamoto

    I would also like to hear about translations of the other rites as they come up. And how are people handle inconsistencies in the ritual books that are created by the new translation of the Mass (e.g. Also with you -> And with your spirit is an easy one to notice and fix on-the-fly. What else?)

    Reply
  32. Moya Tully

    Is it too late to ask again for the new translation to be trialed in selected parishes and communities for a year and then assessed before being implemented?

    Reply
  33. jefffrey tucker

    Can’t get enough that compares current to forthcoming. I find this absolutely fascinating. This blog would make a great contribution to the history of modern times by documenting ever more more more of this. Of course I’m speaking from the point of view of someone who very much welcomes the change.

    On the broader point, it’s just thrilling to have as much talk about ANY aspects of this. It’s just a great thing to have this a matter of public discussion and interest. Just to have matters of Catholic liturgy a subject of involved public discussion is a great step away from the indifference that is all too common.

    Reply
  34. Jonathan Day

    I would keep Pray Tell on the same path it is following today.

    I hope that the editors will neither restrict expressions of joy about the new translation nor censor those who, like Fr Endean, feel a crisis of liturgical conscience in using such poorly translated texts.

    Most of the other liturgical blogs, traditionalist or progressive, are very tendentious; opposing comments are attacked either by the blog editor or by an overly enthusiastic claque. Most of them are marked by poor scholarship. The “Gelatinous” sacramentary that Jeffery Pinyan referred to to was clearly a joke, but the liturgy blogs are filled with similar howlers.

    Worship, the liturgy journal published by St John’s, has a number of articles relevant to the debate on this blog. For instance, Rita Ferrone has written an article I would love to read; it is called “Anti-Jewish Elements in the Extraordinary Form” and is in the current issue. It would be great to get see some of these pieces on the blog, because Worship is very hard to access.

    Reply
  35. Todd Flowerday

    Keep the same path on MR3. Promote MR4.

    Today’s main problem is the percentage of liturgy offerings focused on MR3. It’s like there’s nothing else that will improve parish liturgy. Preaching. Music. Musical texts. Good liturgical scholarship.

    Who knows: maybe the best tack for awhile is to ignore MR3.

    Reply
    1. Jonathan Shea

      Is it possible to promote MR4 when said document does not yet exist? Are you advocating for a new Latin Missal on which to base a new translation, or just a better translation of MR3?

      Reply
      1. Todd Flowerday

        I think the institution as it has rendered itself is incapable of producing a better translation of MR3.

        My view is that the Latin edition of MR3 is part of the problem. We have an impoverished source. We need a Lectionary-harmonized MR4 for any number of reasons.

  36. Jim McKay

    The challenge – which the Church will be working on until the end of time – is to mediate the revelation of our immanent/transcendent God in ways appropriate to all the cultures the Church finds herself in. Anthony Ruff, commenting on a talk by Jeremy Driscoll

    I am interested in the PRAY part of this blog, and am grateful for anything that helps “mediate the revelation of our immanent/transcendent God” to me and those I know. I am delighted by many insights I have gained from the commentary on the O antiphons, J Pinyan’s research, R Ferrone’s mystagogy, etc. The diversity of the contributions helps — I find it difficult to even read Fr Z’s blog, it seems so narrow at times.

    Driscoll echoes with the need to focus on God and our relationship, so I have some hope that it is shared across the board:

    This is the different world into which I enter when I enter the liturgy. A mysterious world. Every piece of the liturgy, language included, builds up this mysterious world and reveals divine reality – realities in themselves not directly perceivable to the senses. If I am going to translate the Roman Missal, than I need to be aware that its language at every turn touches up against these mysteries. Indeed, language itself is a mystery. That is, a concrete something which mediates contact with divine reality. Jeremy Driscoll on Conceiving the Translating Task

    Reply
  37. Jonathan Shea

    A few ideas:

    1) suggesting to priests how to amend to text to avoid syntactical confusion. The new Roman Missal has a great love of the comma, when other punctuation might be more appropriate (for instance, dashes). Just looking at the Collect for the Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper can show where something like this might be necessary.

    2) articles suggesting how LA may be applied more faithfully than in the Received Text (final version of the final version, or whatever we call it). The aim of the endeavor would be to balance intelligibility on the one hand with fidelity to the original on the other. It might serve as grounds for improving the texts in the future. Reference might be made to 1998, 2008, etc., when applicable.

    3) discussion of where the ICEL chants may be appropriate. I recall an early article of mixing musical styles. Would the new chants work well with a large congregation? A daily Mass?

    4) I’ll second the earlier suggestions on ideas for easing the implementation of MR3. Also, plenty of coverage on the implementation, positive and negative. The combination ought to help everyone get where we need to go.

    Those are just a few of which I could think for now.

    Reply
  38. Siobhan Maguire

    With reference to Comment #40: On Gotta Sing Gotta Pray (Thursday January 13, 2011), Jerry Galipeau posts a proposed process for implementing the new Roman Missal in the parish. http://gottasinggottapray.blogspot.com/

    Reply
  39. Christian Cosas

    PrayTell has, in the past year, filled a gaping hole in the Catholic liturgical blogosphere and been a breath of fresh air with its incisive commentary. I hope I’m not being too ambitious by saying, “More of all of the above!”

    Seriously, I do think that there’s been a dearth of practical implementation information. It’d be good to know not only reports from South Africa and New Zealand, but also what worked for them (if anything), what to learn from their mistakes, etc. Some US dioceses are being more laissez-faire than others. Lansing is requiring that all their parishes use Guimont’s Mass for a Servant Church for the first six months—is a diocesan-wide decision like this more helpful or detrimental to implementation?

    Because some commenters have specifically asked for less comparison to 1997, I’m going to join those who have asked for more. I think it’s important to continue to see what Rome rejected and what, more-or-less, gave us LA in the first place.

    Reply
  40. Joe O'Leary

    Jack Nolan trivializes the issue just like the detractors of Bishop Trautman when he writes, “Perhaps unhappy priests can seek an indult to use the 1973 translation for private celebrations but public Masses should be according to the approved contemporary usage.”

    Does he seriously think it is about the linguistic delicacy of unhappy priests? Does he not realize the moral and pastoral issue involved? Has he even read the new translation?

    Reply
  41. Jack Rakosky

    We should look at the 1973 and 1997 texts as well as 2010 text, even the 2008 text. Most bible study groups today use multiple translations. My understanding is that the 1997 approach is significantly different than both 1973 and 2010. Preferences for bible texts are often very individual; likely the same will be true of liturgical texts. Whatever helps people to become more interested in and thoughtful about the liturgy.

    We need a literary approach to the liturgy rather than just historical or theological approaches. I would like to see more discussions of the prayer texts in the context of the whole Mass. How do the prayer texts fit with the readings? With the propers, especially the full psalm texts? With the Prefaces and Eucharistic Prayers? How do these prayer texts hang together seasonally (e.g. all the orations for Lent)? Biblical study has recognized the importance of not taking verses or pericopes in isolation but seeing them in the context of a whole given book, and also in the context of the rest of scripture.

    The homily is supposed to be not only about the readings but about the whole liturgy. How would one preach upon the prayer texts? How could one integrate the prayer texts into the homily? In my experience most homilies (even very good homilies which start with the gospel text) are an interruption to the Mass. They generally don’t connect very well with the rest of the Mass even when hymns are sometimes chosen for this purpose. However, one very good presider was able to integrate the whole liturgy experience by providing very small linking comments, usually no more than a phrase throughout the Mass that also connected to his homily. He did preach the liturgy. Don Cozzens in his book The Changing Face of the Priesthood quotes Rabbi Heschel to the effect that good homilies arise out of prayer and invite us to prayer. That sounds like a good model.

    Reply
  42. Cathy Sauer

    Mitch and others who feels so strongly about the benefits or tradition of Latin. So when did Latin make me feel Catholic? For me in particular and maybe for others under 50, never, ever have my parents, a Catholic education, catechists, priests, nuns or ANYONE ever told me that incorporating Latin in the Mass is done to make me feel more connected to my Catholic faith – in fact it has the opposite affect! I can’t stand it when Latin is used at Mass. I realize certain words and phrases are patterned after Latin (and translated to English – thank goodness!) But the use of “old school Latin” or exclusive Latin has no benefit whatsoever because I can’t understand it – it’s that simple. I don’t go to Mass with the goal of trying to learn a new Latin word and I certainly do drift when the words I am invited to say have no meaning because they are not of my language. Latin has never, does not, and will never help me feel or be Catholic. I go to Mass to praise God, actively participate with the faith community in the wondrous liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist and then be sent nourished by Jesus’ own Body and Blood to be Jesus to others through all that I say and do. When will the Magesterium realize that Latin has little prayer or spiritual value for many faithful Catholics? As with other things, probably never. Latinizing the Mass is a huge disappointment and so is the incorporation of the new Missal with all of its quirky phrasing (particular for priests). For those who think the people in the pews will not really pay attention anyway to the prayers so we might as well accept the changes – that is sad. I am one that does pay attention as do many in my parish because we do take the care and time to make the language relational and the present Sacramentary is beautifully precise and highly adequate. As is typical of the Catholic church, a monarchical, a-democratic, and secretive approach was used in achieving the new Missal- very sad…

    Reply
    1. Jay Taylor

      This post says something I’ve been thinking for awhile: that for most Catholics in the U.S. and other English-speaking countries who are younger than about 53, Latin holds no (or very limited) pride of place for them in worship, since they have participated in English liturgies for their entire sentient life. Thus, the desire to be “more faithful to the Latin” is met by at best a shrug (why is fidelity to Latin more important than well-constructed, idiomatic English?). Many see no special value in being “more faithful to the Latin” (at least at the margin) especially if other values (pertaining to oration or grammar) are overridden. I for one am saddened by the impending demise of the alternate Opening Prayers, some of which are very beautiful, and which I have heard for most of my life. The fact that these were not the exact same prayers being said everywhere in the world has never bothered me. That they have spoken to me in many intimate ways has always comforted and challenged me.

      Furthermore, whereas for much of the first 1900 years AD, Latin was at least somewhat of a “universal (Western) language”, that honor now goes to English, which today is a fairly universal second language. It is this place English holds today among all languages in current use that makes a very clear and not grammatically tortuous translation even more important, since it will be heard by many people who are not native English speakers and, as has been pointed out, will be the basis for further translation to certain less spoken languages.

      Reply
  43. Cathy Sauer

    ok

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Editor

Tags:

Discover more from Home

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

Continue reading