What Do People Really Think about the New Missal?

When I withdrew from speaking engagements and invitations on the new English missal in the dioceses, I learned interesting things about some people’s true feelings toward the new Missal. I had been in contact with the various diocesan liturgy offices for some time, and I thought I had an accurate sense of how supportive they are of the new missal. This is an opportunity for renewal is the sort of thing I heard. We have much programming to promote the new missal. We’re excited that Fr. Ruff will help our priests and people welcome it.

This made it rather difficult for me to inform them of my decision – my “betrayal.” But it had to be done.

Then came the reactions. Some excerpts, all verbatim, from diocesan offices:

I really struggle with this as well. You are a prophetic voice in a church searching for direction.

I’ve had similar thoughts. I am finding it more difficult to be honest and supportive.

Thank you for your courage and honesty.

Father I, too, am heavy-hearted with this Missal. I have shared with a colleague that I feel as though I am lying or keeping the full truth from people as I present on this. I have justified it by trying to reason that most people don’t want to know about the faulty processes. With my position here in the diocese, my hands are tied…

I know the inner struggle to promote something you can’t in your heart accept. Please know I appreciate you reflection and discernment. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if the powers to be could have done that! You have my greatest respect. You represent the Church I want to be part of.

Know of my prayers for you. Most days I feel the Church is closing in on itself and forcing those who don’t adhere to lace, Latin and liturgy in extraordinary forms out of the Church. I try to take solace in the quote of John XXIII that ‘we are not on earth to guard a museum, but to cultivate a flourishing garden of life.’ I find that the Church seems to forget that, especially those who give legislation for the Liturgy.

You will likely be hearing much positive promotion of the new missal from diocesan offices. Beware: it is possible that the people speaking don’t really believe what they’re saying.

*     *     *     *     *

In one of the dioceses where I’ve presented in recent months, the priest organizing my talks was particularly enthusiastic about the missal. The efforts in this diocese are particularly extensive and impressive. They are sending around resources. They are training the trainers. They are gathering their people in small groups to renew their sense of Eucharist. And so on.

Part of being on the lecture circuit is that you’re taken out to eat when it’s done. I admit that I didn’t look forward to this social engagement. Though the priest is extraordinarily welcoming and friendly, I sensed that we were on different wavelengths regarding the missal. I was still keeping my deep misgivings about the translation to myself at this point. I didn’t look forward to having to pretend during the whole meal. Please let it be a short meal, I thought to myself.

Over salad I cautiously mentioned some misgivings. The priest responded in kind, and then some. I went further. So did he. So it went, step by step, until I said that I don’t really believe in this missal. Neither does he.

It was a long meal. By 9pm, the priest was sketching out organized resistance. Which bishops would come over? Which ones are nearing retirement and, with little to lose, more likely to postpone implementation? How can we organize and network to prevent this?

Beware: sometimes even the most enthusiastic promoters of the new missal don’t really believe what they’re saying.

*     *     *     *     *

For a time, as chair of the ICEL music committee, I was attending the translation sessions to get a sense for how the text developed. The idea was to have good collaboration between translators and musicians. I very much enjoyed observing the translation process. I was impressed by the high level of expertise and attention to detail.

Some years ago, at one of the breaks, a cleric particularly involved in the process spoke privately with me. “This approach doesn’t work, Anthony, does it?” At this point I still mostly believed in the translation principles of Liturgiam authenticam. I thought I was part of a noble enterprise bringing beauty and dignity to Catholic worship. My face must have betrayed my bewilderment. “No, these texts won’t work,” the translator opined. “But the only way the Church can learn that is by trying them. So I’ll help the Church create these texts, and I’ll help the Church learn from the problems and, I hope, develop better principles and better texts some day.”

A bubble was burst for me that day. It was the first of what was to be many such experiences. I was learning that some people intimately involved in this process, priests and bishops, don’t really believe in it.

*     *     *     *     *

 At the Southwest Liturgical Conference in Salt Lake City last week, I visited with a diocesan priest friend. He doesn’t see his bishop a lot, but he was able to ask his bishop several weeks ago what he thinks of the new missal. “I think it will be a disaster,” the bishop said. Now I see that this bishop writes in his diocesan paper that the new missal will be a “blessing.” I wonder what the bishop really thinks. Actually, I don’t.

*     *     *     *     *

My open letter to the U.S. bishops went online at America on Friday morning during the SWLC conference. A woman on the local conference organization team caught me in private. To thank me. To say that it’s not easy for her to stay in the Catholic Church. To say that an honest priest helps her stay a bit longer. This from a woman who has volunteered lots and lots of time over the past several months to organize a conference promoting the new missal. I’m privileged to know what she really thinks about it.

*     *     *     *     *

It would be too easy to accuse others of dishonesty or hypocrisy. I see, rather, highly dedicated people placed in difficult situations by the Church. For the most part, the Church does not ask for their feedback, does not allow them to say what they really think, punishes them for speaking out. And yet, they love this Church. They love the liturgy. Their love is so deep that they keep on serving the Church, keep on trying to make the best of a missal they don’t believe in. The personal cost must be high, but they’re willing to pay it.

I am particularly blessed to be in a position where I can be honest. The truth has set me free, and I’ve never felt better. I hadn’t realized how much my soul was weighed down by my entanglement with the new missal. I have increased empathy for those many people who don’t enjoy such freedom.

This isn’t about me. It’s about the whole Church. One thing, more than any other, encourages me on my path. In my privileged and blessed position, I get to hear what many people really think. It is highly rewarding to give those people a voice.

Share:

203 comments

  1. “This isn’t about me. It’s about the whole Church.”

    Amen — and by “whole Church” that includes me and the rest of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic communion of saints. I, too, grieve over what I see happening with the new translation, for it sets back a growing consensus around worship that goes beyond our denominational divisions.

    Reading your post made me think repeatedly of the maxim “Lex orandi, lex credendi”. Should this now be “lex orandi, non lex credendi”?

    Peace to you, Anthony.

  2. Prosper of Aquitaine must be spinning in his grave. This “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi (and, where I come from, the addition of Lex Vivendi)” mis-quotation is, at best, misguided and manipulative.

    Having met you, Fr. Anthony, at various convocations in my diocese, your position on this matter is powerful. I would like to thank and commend you on your decision.

    1. With Fr. Anthony’s repeated refrain of “don’t really believe” what the missal translation puts forth, it’s hard not to think of Prosper.

      The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this (paragraph 1124): “The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles – whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.”

      I grieve for my friend Anthony, with whom I served on the board of the Hymn Society in the US and Canada for several years, and for all who feel torn between their faith and the words they will soon be required to use in expressing that faith.

      “Torn” is not too strong a word for those who are caught in the tension between what they believe and what they must as a matter of law pray. Anthony’s honesty and openness about his struggles in this regard are a gift to the Church, as the conversations he relates above demonstrate.

  3. I just discovered this web-site and blog tonight as an off-shoot to AMERICA’s website and have enjoyed reading the various comments and opinions. I consider myself to be an ordinary “man in the pew” who only has memory of participating in the “Novus Ordo” Rite. I have attended Both the Novus Ordo in Latin and the Tridentine Rite Liturgies. I prefer the Novus Ordo in the vernacular primarily because it is understandable to me and those around me and allows us to participate in dialogue. But especially, it allows us to truly participate in the Liturgy. The Tridentine Rite found me “cold” as though looking at something that I could not fully see through a window. The missal with Latin on one side and English on the other side did not help- I became lost (Embarassing for a 50 year old).

    Now to the point, As much as I love the Novus Ordo Liturgy, and grew up with the present translation, I did not know what I was missing until I read the current drafts of the new translation. I found the Eucharistic Prayers, especially to be enhanced, and the use of scripture more noticeable (Especially in Eucharistic Prayer IV and the prayer of the Centurian said by the people prior to receiving the Eucharist.

    I look forward to the change as something more prayerful and refreshing. I think that the new translations will work if explained well and proclaimed prayerfully and clearly by the Celebrant. God often, if not usually, writes with crooked lines.

    JP

    1. Fr. Joe, a few questions:

      1. Where is the article on the Boston web site? The article has been around since September 2010, as far as I can tell. The “early” date probably explains the “it is hoped” sort of language — the author didn’t have the final version of the text yet.

      2. Why are the various changes made to the Pauline Missal over the past 40 years “insignificant”?

      3. Isn’t “the new wording of the liturgy has nothing to do with theological accuracy” an over-generalization? None of the wording in the new translation has theological accuracy as part of its aim? “Incarnate” instead of “born”, for example?

      4. “But wasn’t one of the rules of Liturgiam Authenticam that the same English word should invariably be used to translate the same Latin word?” You ask this question and do not answer it. Is that actually one of L.A.’s rules? I couldn’t find it, but I might be missing it.

  4. See Liturgiam Authenticam 57: “That notable feature of the Roman Rite, namely its straightforward, concise and compact manner of expression, is to be maintained insofar as possible in the translation. Furthermore, the same manner of rendering a given expression is to be maintained throughout the translation, insofar as feasible.”

    1. “The same manner of rendering a given expression” does not equate to using the same English word for a Latin word throughout the text; it sounds (to me) more focused on translating expressions the same way, when that expression is used multiple times. For example, the same Latin expressions in the Eucharistic Prayers should be translated the same way each time.

      And, of course, L.A. gives an “out” — “insofar as feasible.”

      1. I think you’re splitting hairs, Jeffrey.

        And the 2010 text has multiple instances of the same expression being translated in different ways — for an example, an antiphon which occurs in three different places in the Missal with three different translations.

        ICEL has just sent out a second list of errata to national liturgy secretaries — all to do with commas and the lack of them — and it may not be the last.

        I think what we’re really talking about here is editorial incompetence on the part of Vox Clara, not translation principles.

    2. That does not mean that each local territory can translate their own version of the missal. That continues the concept of dynamic equivalance you want the church to continue with, and one that LA is against. The concept we must accept now is called formal eqivalance or a more faithful translation to the Latin. As I said before-ever since the beginning of the Church, whenever there has been liturgical language translation from one language to another, there has never been complete agreement on what the translation should be. So we shouldn’t expect one now either.

      1. Again according to Bp Taylor, the ICEL was set up precisely to enable English speaking bishops to produce their translation of the liturgy, striving for a single translation in the entire English-speaking world. The Congregation for Divine Worship had excellent relations with ICEL and encouraged their work along the dynamic equivalence path mapped out in Comme le prevoit. Suddenly panic overtook the CDW and they produced Liturgiam Authenticam, starkly contradicting all the common sense principles of Comme le prevoit. That was really a rejection of the Church of Pual VI and Vatican II. LA is clearly an inadequate charter for translation, and that is the very reason why the new translations are so ghastly. You say “we must accept” LA, and indeed the world’s bishops, in a scandalous dereliction of duty, gave it a free pass. But if something turns out to be a disaster in practice, no amount of theoretical acceptance can save it. In any case, even theoretically LA is wrong; its presumption that dynamic equivalence is a false, outdated philosophy of translation would not be accepted by professional translators or translation theorists.

  5. Sure, but the point was that is sameness is to be cultivated this seems to conflict with the claim that the new translation exhibits a richer vocabulary. Of course the preces of 1973 must be disregarded in any comparison. It is a spiritual tragedy that those of 1998 were not adopted; they read beautifully. No doubt the vocabulary of the 2008-2010 preces is richer, but not necessarily more artistic. Sometimes the vocabulary of the new translation is characterized more by giving odd meanings to common words such as “acclaim” and “recognizing”.

  6. It is useful to bear in mind that the Church of England has, for centuries now, used a translation of many texts from the Roman Rite that is often more in line with the principles of Liturgiam Authenticam than the current ICEL translation. For example, that translation does have “and with thy Spirit”, “that thou shouldst come under my roof”, and other phrases that are more literal renditions of the source Latin texts. (To be sure, there are divergences, too.)

    I do not mean to suggest that we adopt “King James English” in rank-and-file Catholic parishes (though serving in an Anglican Use parish has shown me some real beauty in a liturgy that uses that language), but I think it’s worthwhile to bear in mind that the forthcoming translation is not the only possible realization of the principles in Liturgiam Authenticam.

    What seems most questionable about this process are the accounts of “not working and playing well with others” that, according to Fr. Ruff and others whose commentary I have read, has characterized much of the development of the new translation.

  7. “To thank me. To say that it’s not easy for her to stay in the Catholic Church. To say that an honest priest helps her stay a bit longer.”

    Dido, Amen, Grazie Mille.

  8. I thank you for speaking from your heart. It couldn’t have been easy and I’m sure that your letter was the fruit of much prayer and discernment. I work with the children at our Parish, and this New Translation is a concern to me. When I think of Jesus, who he is, how he came, and the way that he lived his life, I cannot help but wonder why we complicate such things. Jesus lived among the people, he spoke the language of the time, he participated in the customs and traditions of the time. Even though he is eternal, he entered time. How do we explain language to children such as ‘enter under my roof?’ Jesus desires a relationship with us, an intimate relationship. We want to teach the children that we can pray anytime, about anything…like speaking with your best friend. This new language in the Mass will be difficult for them.

  9. Maybe being almost 200 miles away from the seat of our diocese has tainted me, but most priests and yes most laity in our diocese could care less what diocesan offices have to say and more so what they think, especially liturgy offices.
    Admittedly I only have 2000 families in my parish and I’ve only been catechizing about 5 years about this change, but the vast majority of people in the pew are not complaining. Maybe they are apathetic. I think, though, they have more important things to worry about, the education of their children, which is skyrocketing in our little city, worry about what kind of world they will be living in after they depart Mass and what they will have for lunch. I had about 30 people who did not like our going to Latin for the greeting parts of the Mass over two years ago, but today they are singing and saying it and almost raising the roof when I greet them in Latin. They tell me they will miss the Latin greetings when we go to the new English in Advent.
    So getting back to diocesan offices, most of us don’t give a flip about their feelings. They really are irrelevant.

    1. That raises the question: why implement the new missal? In fact I could use your arguments to argue against it: you don’t really care what the diocesan offices say, there are more important things to worry about, and you are doing just fine without it.

      Of course, that’s rhetorical – I don’t really believe that those make a good case against the new missal – but I don’t think they make a good case in favor of it either.

    2. Yes, it’s almost the Presbyterian model of the Church: each priest is Pope in his own parish. If we can’t say “and with your spirit” legally yet, then by God while I’m pastor here we’ll do it in Latin till we can. If you don’t like it you can go somewhere else. And yes, Claire, you’re right. Someone with the opposite point of view could decide to act the same independent way in the other direction. Good to be king.

      1. I would say that it is good to be pastor especially at an exciting time of change such as now and I do appreciate the canon laws that help direct pastors and make clear his role and responsibility. I take that responsibility very seriously and yes, I can take the heat of my decisions when of course they are in full continuity with liturgical law and the flexibility that is allowed in the liturgy. But with that said, the diocesan offices are established to assist the bishop in his ministry, they are not established for those who serve in the capacity of the office. Their crisis of faith or crisis of attitude toward the exercise of Church authority when it comes to implementing what is now mandated for the First Sunday of Advent whether we like it or not or if we are ready or not is their existential angst and should be discussed with a spiritual director, their bishop or immediate superior or a counselor and of course their close friends.

      2. Only comments wIf we can’t say “and with your spirit” legally yet, then by God while I’m pastor here we’ll do it in Latin till we can.

        It’s OK, Jeremy; they’re, um, dynamically equivalent. Surely you agree.

      3. I don’t think you know what a Presbyterian model of Church is: teaching and ruling elders, consistory, board of deacons. Quite unlike “each priest is Pope in his own parish.”

      4. Hey there Bobby and Sam: you probably don’t remember but I’ve been one of the big supporters of what I saw of 2008 compared with what I’ve seen of 2010. so “and with your spirit” is something I look forward to. And I was referring to the original Presbyterian model (presbyter=priest) which opposed the Episcopal (episcopus=bishop) model of church structure. And my point was the attitude of the priest who sets himself up as pope in his own parish and decides this is how we’ll do it, if you don’t like it leave. And how that could work in advocating just the opposite of what Fr McDonald does.

        It’s not OK, Bobby; cuz, um, wasn’t that equivalently done to YOUR side of the liturgy aisle back in the day? Surely you agree.

      5. And my point was the attitude of the priest who sets himself up as pope in his own parish and decides this is how we’ll do it, if you don’t like it leave.

        And a very good point it is. Someone should tell Fr. Ruff’s presbyter friend.

  10. “A woman on the local conference organization team caught me in private. To thank me. To say that it’s not easy for her to stay in the Catholic Church. To say that an honest priest helps her stay a bit longer.”

    I feel this way too. Thanks.

  11. When ecclesiastical professionals, that is, people who receive a salary from the Church, are hanging by a thread due to a new translation of the already existing liturgy I cannot help but notice that the liturgical translation is only a symbol illustrating something deeper that must be bothering them about the Church & the Church’s faith. Maybe it is the hierarchy, maybe it is the Church’s view of ordination, maybe it is the Church’s reluctance to being led by the zeitgeist that has caused so much doctrinal & moral changes in some other denominations. Maybe its simple boredom or maybe they recognize that it is the traditional Catholic faith, obscured by the old ICEL version but revealed by the new translation that bothers them. They may have forgotten that the liturgy is there to change us, it is not there for us to change it to suit our existing sensibilities.

    These ecclesiastical professionals are in the same position as their forbears who found it difficult if not impossible to sell 1973 over 1967, 1965, or 1962. We can survey articles from that period to get advice on how to encourage people to realize their duty to accept the new liturgy and its translation.

    In some ways the new translation may serve as a “winnowing fan” (Lk) because the Church is not well served by paid professionals who do not buy into her mission for today. If one priest who echoes her personal opinion about a translation or the exercise of authority in the Church and not the traditional Catholic faith, is keeping a paid professional in the Church, at least for awhile longer, how effective can she be? How much can her bishop really depend on her? How is this kind of reluctance the Church’s fault? Where is the employee’s integrity, where is her responsibility?

    1. Maybe it is the hierarchy, maybe it is the Church’s view of ordination, maybe it is the Church’s reluctance to being led by the zeitgeist that has caused so much doctrinal & moral changes in some other denominations. Maybe its simple boredom or maybe they recognize that it is the traditional Catholic faith, obscured by the old ICEL version but revealed by the new translation that bothers them.

      A bit of unsolicited advice: as a spiritual exercise, you might try imagining reasons why people could be less-than-enthusiastic about the new translation that do not imply a lack of faith on their part. It would be interesting at least to try. and it might make you more reticent about taking upon yourself the task of separating the wheat from the tares.

      1. Deacon Fritz, we’ve been repeatedly told on PrayTell that even dramatic liturgical changes do not drive people out of the Church (specifically in regards to pre-Vatican II to post-Vatican II).

        If we stipulate that, then we’re left with two alternatives when people talk about the risk of people leaving the Church because of the new translation, either they’re not going to leave or it’s something else that’s bothering them.

        I’m happy to not stipulate it, but it’ll require a reworking of the party line on ’62 vs. post-’62.

      2. I simply think that it is generally better for one’s own spiritual wellbeing to interpret peoples actions and words as generously as possible. My own experience in the Church is that there can often be plenty of non-doctrinal factors that could leave one hanging by an easily-severed thread.

    1. “disappointment bias”: do you mean that the sample is biased, because the people who wrote to Fr Ruff to express agreement are precisely the ones who are disappointed with the new missal?

      That’s surely true. But isn’t it striking, coming from the very people who had been chosen by their diocese to promote the new missal? It’s a biased sample of a biased sample, so to speak.

    2. Let’s try an analogy: imagine that in 2002-2003 the US Army, in each region, picks an enthusiastic recruit to educate people about the situation and advocate for the war in Iraq. Then one high profile member of the military comes out to say that it’s been planned poorly and is going to be a failure. Then it turns out that more than a few of the official advocates secretly agree with him, as well as, even, one of the very people doing the planning. Wouldn’t that give you pause? I would find that extremely disturbing.

  12. “A woman on the local conference organization team caught me in private. To thank me. To say that it’s not easy for her to stay in the Catholic Church. To say that an honest priest helps her stay a bit longer.”

    Thank goodness I’m not alone in this.

    I work in a Catholic High School. I will be primarily responsible for introducing the new Missal, with the “sacral” language that most of our 11-18 year olds will not understand. I have spent all my time teaching them God doesn’t need formal language to hear us… can someone tell our leadership that? The current translation is simple, clear and incredibly beautiful.

    My response to the new Missal when raised now is a sigh and a “It’s a great opportunity for catechesis” through gritted teeth… I don’t believe it is. I believe it’s moving the Church a step further from the ordinary people in the pews and on our streets we should be reaching out to. Another step back towards being a “secret society” again, with an incomprehensible language for the uninitiated… To be honest, I want to cry. Thank you for your honestly. If only it would help…

    1. “I have spent all my time teaching them God doesn’t need formal language to hear us… can someone tell our leadership that?”

      I truly hope you do not belittle formal language in prayer and let them know there are many ways to pray. Prayer is a very intimate act, and not everyone does it the same way – some kids might find formal prayers with formal language helpful in some situations. I pray with formal thee/thou prayers, Latin prayers, and informal “hi God” prayers. Whatever works. What you find difficult and off-putting might resonate deeply with others and bring them closer to Jesus, and what you find “clear, simple, and beautiful” might be boring and ugly to others and drive them away.

      1. “I pray with formal thee/thou prayers”

        Not exactly. In archaic English usage, “thee, thou, thy” are the familiar, not the formal personal pronouns. Similarly, in German one addresses the Almighty with the familiar “Du” rather than the formal “Sie”.

      2. I thought that in English prayer “thee and thou” are used to denote the singular form of “you.”

        “You” and “ye” are plural (refer to a group of people) while “thee” and “thou” are singular (refer to one person). The popular meaning shifted over time and “you” became formal and “thee” became informal to the point of being an insult in some situations, but biblical translations and liturgical prayers never followed this trend and retained the original meanings.

        I should note that when I called “thee and thou” language “formal,” I was referring more to how such archaic language is generally thought of by most people today – I wasn’t talking about “thee” specifically being a formal type of address.

      3. So the Jews at the time of Jesus did not have any sort of formal language for prayer in any context?

        I honestly see nothing wrong with having many types of prayer.

  13. For some reason the old doo-wop song “Tears on my Pillow” by Little Anthony and the Imperials keeps running through my head…

    1. John Drake, what caused your outbreak of empathy? Is it for me or for others? If for me, was it because I wrote “The truth has set me free, and I’ve never felt better. I hadn’t realized how much my soul was weighed down by my entanglement with the new missal.” ?
      awr

    2. My guess, Father, is that, as we’ve seen from so many of the Drakester’s comments on here his devotion to the traditional Mass and his participation in it have made him one burning furnace of charity or in the words of another song he probably knows “Just a Hunk a Hunk o’ Burning Love” (Elvis, the King, or in the words of the new translation “the Immensity of His Majesty”)

  14. You are far too comfortable talking about what you know. You continually want to steer the ship into the waters you control. Your noses are buried so deep into the structures of language and origin of words that they no longer operate in the manner for which they were created. They cannot smell Rome burning.

    So raise your heads. Listen. A new wind blows over the land.

  15. What do people really think? We do not know, and will likely never know.

    When the GIRM changes occurred, some were disturbed that they had to raise their hands rather than hold hands with their family, and others were disturbed that they had to stand and sing rather than kneel and pray during communion time. How widespread were these reactions? How deep and damaging? We will never know.

    Having collected data for 20 years in the mental health system, I was initially surprised how little clinical staff knew about their clients. Later this became understandable. The average person with a severe mental illness has about 5 major problem areas (e.g. medications, housing, etc.) and most clinicians treat 30 to 60 people, that means 150 to 300 problems. Only a computer could keep track of all that information! And people wonder when a major incident occurs that no one recognized the warning signals. It’s a forest of warning signals.

    Mental health counselors like everyone else put on blinders to focus on certain tasks to get things done. One counselor had a great and justifiable reputation for group therapy. But you have to be in individual therapy before being in group therapy. Ninety percent of the people assigned to this counselor dropped out of individual therapy and never got to group therapy. The counselor did a wonder job with 10% of the people, but a poor job with 90%.

    Pastoral staff know something about the 20% of the people of the parish with whom they spend 80% of their time. Often these are likeminded people. They also know the 1% of the parish who complain. The other 79% are not on the radar screen.

    The Vibrant Parish Life Study found that “Parish leadership that listens to the concerns of parishioners” was ranked 7th in importance but 29th in being well done among 39 items by 46,241 people spread over 129 parishes. People in the pews are well aware that 90% of time parish staff have their blinders on.

    1. “Pastoral staff know something about the 20% of the people of the parish with whom they spend 80% of their time. Often these are likeminded people. They also know the 1% of the parish who complain. The other 79% are not on the radar screen.”

      Bingo. And this cognitive blindspot knows no ideological boundary.

      1. And for organizations who care to know the truth, there are ways to address that problem: polls, surveys, statistics.

      2. Actually, parishes do not need polls, surveys, etc. to keep in touch with parish members,

        Use a parish council (usually about 12 members) to each talk to one randomly selected parish member per week which results in about 50 member interviews per month.

        Have each member summarizes each conversion in an email to fellow council members soon after the interview, and discuss the conversions monthly.

        If the council meets ten months a year, that would be 500 member interviews discussed per year. Surely a good way to listen to the people.

        I would not waste time asking the parish council to make recommendations. If the conversations (without names) are simply summarized with very little interpretation (here is what we are hearing from people) and made available to the parish, change will begin to take place.

        For parish members whose pastor and council may not want to do this, simply do it yourself.

        Begin interviewing people whom you know, asking them to suggest others, and keep the ball rolling. Again summarize and circulate everything by means of the internet.

        It is the age of internet revolution!

      3. Surveys are of limited value, because often they are limited by data-oriented questions. Open-ended interviewing (with non-leading questions) is much better, but it won’t result in data to be measured, though it will give you more valuable information. To get good information, one must take time and make effort. A tapestry is what you will find, and a tapestry is not simple. With technology today, people feel like that’s a waste, but it’s the most important part, at least if you approach people with genuine curiosity. You have to like people (including disagreeable and contentious ones), not just The People.

        Questions can’t be leading. So avoid too many questions with binary answers. Questions beginning with “what” are better than questions beginning with “how” or “why”. Issues should be framed neutrally to avoid leading or repelling the respondent. All of these things can be difficult for interviewers who are not genuinely curious but instead view the interviews as a means to an end.

        If we ever want Rome or our local bishops to engage in curious listening, we have to first model it ourselves in our parish life. Anyone who dreams of implementing Vatican III in a Vatican I way is missing the point. The revolution begins below, not above.

      4. Jack, Karl, I read your comments, created an account on survey monkey, and created a survey that you can see on

        http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NDJTGZ2

        It’s free and took me less than 10 minutes total. (Unsurprisingly the questions I improvised are not that clever!) It’s a fake survey but it’s just to show how it works; any parish council or pastor anywhere could do it. (I knew about surveymonkey because some of my colleagues use it for student feedback on their lectures.)

      5. Karl and Claire,

        Open ended questions are best because they provide the greatest reliability and validity(but take more time).

        I would begin by defining a topic, e.g. hymns at Mass, asking a few simple questions, e.g. what do you like about them? what do you dislike? what would you suggest we do that we are not now doing? and send the questions by e-mail, with the option of e-mail response or a phone conversation.

        If, after 10 or 20 responses, I find some issue, e.g. chant was mentioned by a third or more people, I would add a question about chant through an e-mail.

        A key element of credibility is publishing the “verbatim” responses of people. The first thing that people look for is their responses. If they see they were accurately reported, then they believe other people were accurately reported, etc.

        I publish results anonymously and do not put the same person’s responses together. E.g. I put all the responses to “What do you like about hymns?” together. Usually arrange similar responses in categories (what researchers would do to quantify them). So there is no way to connect someone’s response under one question to their response under another question.

        Some people are afraid of retaliation if their responses are known, even more simply want to express themselves without getting into arguments. They want to hear other people’s honest opinions, too. They need to find out they are not alone, or that they are part of a small minority not the silent majority.

        Yes, one of my reports does look very much like a tapestry; complex but well organized. I try to organize so that people say “wouldn’t you conclude from this?” to which I reply “is that what you are concluding?”

        Providing a summary or recommendation focuses people’s attention on the data gather or parish council rather than the data and what people are saying. Data will speak strongly if one does not get in the way.

      6. And do you think that a survey would be useful right now? Most people don’t know about the New Missal (in my parish at least), so I think that a survey would give very little information at this point.

        Maybe each diocese could do a survey of its priests and lay ministers, though. Most priests are at least vaguely aware of what’s coming. The survey can be anonymous (they just enter their responses anonymously on the web site). Would that be useful, and what questions should they be asked, in your opinion?

        One goal right now could be to show that, as the Vox Clara statement claimed, the new missal is being warmly welcomed… or not. Another goal could be to see how much pastors know about it so far. Another goal could be to see if pastors have creative suggestions to help implementation in their parish. Another goal could be to ask priests what they think the diocese can do for them to help them in the process.

        There are some diocesan employees reading this blog right now. If you come up with an example of an unbiased survey to ask people for their thoughts and suggestions, tonight some readers who are diocesan employees could send out such a survey to the clergy of their diocese, and next week they could have the result. Why not?

      7. Claire,

        I have been away from my computer for several hours.

        I agree with you that it is too early to ask people in the pews.

        In regard to parish and diocesan employees:

        I always like to begin be identifying the positives. I suggest asking them what they see as the most important positives at the parish level, e.g. opportunity to educate people on the Mass, etc., especially in very practical terms of what pastoral staff at the parish level can really do, not just ideally

        Second, I would ask them for the most important negatives at the parish level, again with emphasis upon the very practical problems that they think they will encounter at the parish level, e.g. apathy, confusion, opposition or dislike.

        After looking at the positives and negatives, I usually like to go for creative suggestions and strategies.

        First what people at the diocesan level might do in a practical way to be most creatively helpful to address the positives and the negatives at the parish level.

        Secondly, to share creative ideas across parishes. In the mental health system I found that most managers and clinicians just did not have time to think creatively, but if I gave them access to ideas in various ways they could almost always figure out which were the most useful and do them very well because of their practical expertise.

        In talking to priests off the record after the sexual abuse scandal started, I was pleasantly surprised at how savvy so many are when you get them out of the role of pastor answer person. But they all told me that they were overwhelmed. So tapping into some of their ideas and the ideas of pastoral staff may be a way of beginning to work more horizontally than vertically.

        Finally I might use the responses to these initial general questions to identify follow-up questions.

  16. I find Fr. Anthony’s letter AND the discernment and struggle that led up to it, to be a powerful witness for me, and a source for my own reflection as we move forward not only in terms of the new translation, but in all things as we struggle to find a relationship with the institutional church that can keep us hopeful and proud. God bless Fr. Anthony, and keep him – for we need not only his scholarship and tremendous gifts, but his spirit and love for the liturgy and the Church.

  17. I find that I am walking a thin line between representing what I truly believe with regard to ICEL2010 and yet orienting my parishioners in a way that does not lead them into despair. The church leaders who are promoting ICEL2010 while knowing it is indeed a disaster are analogous to church leaders who knew the facts about sexual abuse yet said or did nothing about it. Nobody wants to stay in Podunk for the rest of his life.

  18. I saw a comment by Fr Komonchak a few days ago on some other subject: “At cynical moments I think that the primary purpose of references to the Holy Spirit is to excuse oneself from having to give reasons for what one is thinking, saying, or doing”

    Please note that Fr. Ruff has not invoked simply being moved by the Holy Spirit, but over time has accumulated a variety of reasons for his decision. His perspective can be explored by reading the various links at http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/11/06/translation-directory-watch-this-space/

  19. What if most of the people entrusted with implementing the new Missal think it’s the wrong thing to do, but are going along with it because they see no other option?

    If that’s true, what happens if all those people see another option?

  20. Thank you Father Ruff for this website and for your honesty. It has helped knowing there are lots of other people who are very disappointed with this new translation which sadly will be introduced in England at the beginning of September.

  21. However, Father Ruff, in a sense, you have made it about yourself. Nowhere in the authoritative documents of the Holy See does it say that the priests and the faithful had to be consulted with regarding translation issues. The bishops were presented with a series of booklets, which they, in turn voted on with some amendments. These were taken into account and a final version was prepared. The process was followed. It seems to me that one is letting one’s pride get in the way.

    The folks who seem to be against the translation seem to be against it in principle. There is also a sense of collective amnesia when the changes came about 40 years ago. The ones who were promoting the change chastised the ones who were very reticent. Now that the tables are turned, it seems that the ones who are against the change want to be the conservatives of their generation.

    I have always been suspect of both the SWLC and the FDLC. It seems to me that there is some lipservice, on the one hand, and then some quiet sense of revolt on the other. For me, the better conference was the Society for Catholic Liturgy. They are interested in promoting a true Sensus Fidei in the Church, something that I found quite absent in the FDLC.

    1. 1. The process was not followed. You keep asserting the same things over and over on this blog, but that doesn’t make them true. Vox Clara began making its changing before the bishops had even voted on their version, and the vast majority of VC’s changes by far did not come from the bishops. Um, I think I’m in a better position than you to know the real story on this! I was part of the process.

      2. “The tables are turned” sure sounds like revenge. Are you suggesting that the conservative liturgical renewal of the present time is about getting even? Are you enjoying that, by chance?

      3. I was eight years old 40 years ago. I hope that lessens my responsibility in your eyes for the mistakes made back then.

      4. SWLC and FDLC are both supported by the bishops. Are you calling into question their episcopal leadership, and saying that you know better than them? If so, I hope it is without pride.

      awr

      1. Fr. Ruff,

        I get that the process used was not the one you would have preferred. And I see that there are problems with the final result. (Though I think the final result is still miles better than what we have now.)

        But the process used doesn’t seem to violate the rules as you claim: “how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority.”

        LA says “80. … Furthermore, this recognitio is not a mere formality, but is rather an exercise of the power of governance, which is absolutely necessary (in the absence of which the act of the Conference of Bishops entirely in no way attains legal force); and modifications –even substantial ones—may be introduced by means of it….”

        So substantial modifications may be introduced by the CDWDS even after the Bishops approve the translation.

        Vox Clara is, as I understand, an advisory committee of the CDWDS, by the authority of which its actions are incorporated into governance.

        There’s nothing that says Vox Clara as a committee of the Congregation can’t start looking at the texts and give their recommendations to the Congregation, which are then incorporated into the text when it is given final approval by the Congregation which has the sole authority to give that final approval.

        The Bishops never had the final say, so their right to have the final say can’t be said to have been violated.

        Lumen Gentium 22: “The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”

        If he wants to do it with Vox Clara, that’s part of “always”.

      2. Are you calling into question their episcopal leadership, and saying that you know better than them?

        To be honest, Fr. Anthony, isn’t that what a lot of people are doing here, wondering how the English-speaking bishops of the world can sit back and accept a translation which they are not pleased with?

      3. I’ve read that before and just looked at it again. Yes, the Bishop establishes that the law of the Church is that the local Bishops must propose a translation and that it must be reviewed and confirmed by the Holy See. That is what happened here. None of those documents say that the Holy See can’t make changes.

        If you really think the process was uncanonical, (contra the CDWDS, the USCCB, and, as far as anyone can tell, the Pope) don’t you have an obligation to not implement the new missal?

        J.P. makes an excellent point as well. It does seem inconsistent to say one can’t object to the work of the FDLC because it’s backed by some bishops while simultaneously objecting to the translation, which certainly has the backing of some bishops too.

      4. This new missal text is canonical. And Mubarek has a right to remain in office indefinitely according to the Egyptian constitution. In both cases the legal situation is clear.

        What happens when the system breaks down and the people no longer accept it? You seem strangely unaware of the human dynamics in your citing of legal powers. You seem to think that authorities will retain their crumbling power if only they assert it more strongly.

        The issue in the Catholic Church has become: how do we build consensus and buy-in and unity? What would a future textual revision process look like, how would the hierarchy best carry out its rightful role, to unite the People of God around a much better text which is more dignified, beautiful, accurate, and musical?

        All we know for sure is that the current system isn’t working. Your efforts to prop it up surely are futile.

        awr

      5. Fr. Ruff, I’m just trying to understand your argument. At 3:14, you wrote “The process was not followed.”

        Now at 4:34 you write “This new missal text is canonical.”

        If the text is canonical, then the process must have been followed.

        Again, we’re left with you arguing that there should have been a different process. That’s a legitimate point of view, but it’s a rather more exposed and subjective one.

      6. Is Mubarek the head of Egypt? Yes and no.

        Yes, according to a contorted justification of authority whereby authority is always right. But in the eyes of the people, no.

        Is it proper process for Vox Clara to highjack the text and CDW to impose this text on conferences? Yes, you can find the legal loopholes to justify it.

        But is it a proper process according to Vatican II’s teachings on collegiality? Or according to Jesus’ teachings on how we shouldn’t lord it over others like Gentiles?

        In my mind, the answer is no. This is not proper process.

        This is not a process that will ever succeed (anymore) in building up the Body of Christ and bringing the faithful on board with more beautiful and dignified texts.

        awr

      7. Then Father Ruff, you might know who did this and can tell us who did it, and why. I suspect the last minute changes were carried out by liberals or Freemasons. If you know, you ought to tell us who the enemy is.

  22. I read you recent letter to the bishops and was deeply touched, not only by your reflections about the missal changes, but by your insights into the larger authority issues. I along with many I know share the same feelings of having no real recourse to meaningful input into the system. Thank you for putting voice to our sorrow. I am a firm believer in the adage, “A burden shared is a burden halved.”

  23. Mr. Howard and Ms. Romani – you really need to study all of the documents posted to the right hand of the PrayTell blog. There are in depth analyses and interpretations of both of your points.

    Mr. Howard – you can argue all day about the points you quote but, in the end, it is only your opinion. The Vox Clara approach is a sea change from what was started, directed, and followed for more than 30 years. You can reinterpret all you want but it is your opinion; not the facts.

    Ms. Romani – don’t even know where to start – your ignorance is so broad and so deep. Fr. Ruff was consulted as was Fr. Griffin as were many others. The documents do outline a collegial process; Vatican II did direct the implementation of ICEL (as an expression of the principles they articulated, wrote, and voted overwhelmingly in favor of). The documents also outline subsidiarity which has been completely changed by Vox Clara – now conferences merely approve but even then Rome can do what it wants.

    DiNoa has only been around for one year – please. You mix associations that are national with dicasteries in Rome…nothing like apples to oranges.

    Your opinion that this is “dissent” rather than obedience or humility suggests that you have your own particular way of defining dissent, obedience, and humility.

    1. but, in the end, it is only your opinion.

      Actually it’s not. It’s also the opinion of the CDWDS, the USCCB, and, as far as we can tell, the Pope, all of whom are proceeding with the implementation of the translation on the basis of the legislative process which Fr. Ruff suggests is uncanonical.

  24. And in the history of the church, all three of the aforementioned have been repeatedly wrong. Believe that Fr. Ruff has clarified for you your statement about “uncanonical”…..whatever definition you give it.

  25. Thank you for speaking out. I share your misgivings.

    What can I as a layperson do about this?

    Not attend programs to educate us or just not say the prayers?

    seems a terrible way to give our position but what else is left to us?
    Any serious suggestions are welcome.

    1. Mary Kirsh,

      This is such a mess; I believe that committed Christians will have varied ways of responding to it.

      Personally I don’t think the Eucharistic Sacrifice itself should be a place of division. If the new missal is actually implemented on I Advent, I believe in doing our very best with it.

      But I have good reason to believe it’s still possible to derail the missal. (I can’t say anything more than that.) I believe it is still useful to raise your voice at this point, and organize with others who feel the same way. Tell your bishop. Beg him to delay it. Make your views known.

      awr

      1. Fr. Anthony, I”m taking you up on your idea. My letter goes out to the archbishop of New York tomorrow.

    2. I’ve asked myself the same question (as have many readers of this blog, I’m sure). I’ve written to my pastor, our vicar, and our Archbishop (Dolan), and tried respectfully to raise concerns about process and product, citing examples of unpronounceable text and violations of the standards to have been applied to the translation. I have no sense that my comments have in any way moved any of them, and am at a loss as to what else to do, except pray. (I also signed the ‘What if we just said wait?’ petition, but don’t see any other “organizing” going on that I could support.)

  26. “It is still possible to derail the missal” — words of hope!

    When one notes the totally unconvincing and clearly half-hearted language of those charged with plugging the new missal, it seems clear that one good shove would lead to its quiet abandonment. Nobody, just nobody, wants these wretched new translations. Even the critics of the critics on this website never actually defend the new translations on their own merits.

    1. Joe,

      This particular comment of yours is an exercise in confirmation bias. And it’s just wrong, factually, in its totalizing of what is partly true. That kind of thing does not rally the persuadable, but is more likely to get in the way of persuasion.

      1. You agree my diagnosis is partly true. Now please find the enthusiastic, joyful propaganda for the new translation taht will prove my remarks are partly untrue. I quote specific texts and show, by fisking them, that they are lacking in true conviction. Can you find counter-texts?

      2. Joe

        This blog has contained many entries from folks who welcome the translation. And there is plenty of enthusiasm in other parts of St Blog’s.

        Fisking is chump’s business.

        The amount of effort you are spending on trying to reinforce your own sense of reality is telling.

      3. “This blog has contained many entries from folks who welcome the translation. And there is plenty of enthusiasm in other parts of St Blog’s.”

        Really? Even Fr Zuhlsdorf does not seem very enthusiastic. And even you don’t.

      4. “Fisking is chump’s business.

        “The amount of effort you are spending on trying to reinforce your own sense of reality is telling.”

        Not so — I am in exactly the same situation now as wen I blogged against the Iraq War. Back then, the conservatives talked about “sense of reality” etc., but the nasty facts were the nasty facts. My sense of reality was not defective!

        In the present case, I feel a certain naughty thrill of Schadenfreude, as I see the JP2-B16 behemoth head for its come-uppance. If the new translation is not withdrawn, the Vatican will have a stupendous mess on its hands — frankly, it is what they amply deserve. Pity about the porr confused faithful, though.

  27. Thank you for having the courage to not promote the new liturgical translations. Most people I know are in agreement that they are a step backward. The fact that so many priests and bishops are troubled by the new language is quite telling!

    1. The point I am making is that the bishops, according to Vatican II, should have had a much greater say than they have insisted on. It is a dereliction of duty on their part to rubberstamp a mediocre translation, to allow Rome to have the final say the quality thereof (in opposition to Vatican II), to allow the bad translation principles of Liturgiam Authenticam to be imposed without discussion (entailing that one dreads to present any but the most woodenly literal texts to Rome for fear of not getting the recognition — which is increasingly made into a weird hurdle or moving goalpost manifulated by bullies like Medina, the Pinochet cardinal behind an awful lot of the present debacle), etc. Priest and laity are rightly angry at this betrayal by their bishops. Rather than talk about Revelation and Faith & Morals, neither of which are in question here, think rather of Pastoral Responsibility (bearing the abuse scandal in mind as an example of how grave a failure on this front can be).

  28. Again,read the book The Genius of the Roman Rite. And the last I checked, ICEL only makes recommendations. The bishops(the chief liturgists in the dioceses and the territories) and the Pope, the chief liturgist for the whole church) have to consult each other, but as the chief liturgist, the Pope has the right to overrule the recommendations of the bishops, as the bishops conferences are only responsible for the whole church of their territories,and the local bishop is only responsible for the whole church of his local diocese. The Bishop is the chief liturgist for his local dioceses. The pastor of each parish is responsible for the whole church of his parish,and is the chief liturgist for his local parish. Just as the Pope can overrule the bishops on liturgical matters, the bishops have the right to overrule the priests on liturgical matters. As I stated previously, I am a liturgy planner for my parish, and I assist the priests by suggesting the prayers, and writing the petitions for one liturgy a month. Our former liturgy director always reminded us to leave our egos at the door, and that the Presider for that Mass has the right to overrule our suggestions if there is a pastoral reason for doing so or if they have a different preference than what we suggested. But that doesn’t happen that often.
    So I have to suggest that all clergy and diocesan liturgists leave their egos at the door and understand that the Church is exercising proper authority because this is about what is appropriate not only for the whole Church but for the entire Roman Rite. Our faith may be LIVED from bottom to top, but our faith is REVEALED from the Magisterium(the Pope and Bishops) down to the local clergy(the Priests and Deacons) down to the people. Like it or not that is the hierarchy of the Church.

    1. Tim,

      I don’t see anyone critiquing the missal out of ego. To say “check your egos at the door” is unfair, and entirely misses the point. If you mean the people of God should abdicate their responsibility for being part of the solution to a huge problem, I say “No” because the nature of this tangle is such that it requires all of us to do our part. The suggestion that the missal situation we currently face is either a doctrinal matter demanding obedience or an instance of smooth functioning of ordinary hierarchical governance is just plain wrong. It does not correspond to the facts, which have been plainly laid out on this blog over and over again. “Like it or not” — to use your own words — something different from this is going on, and the faithful have a right and duty to speak up.

      1. Whether you agree with Tim or not and I don’t know his status in the Church, but he is one of the “faithful” I presume and he’s speaking up. If we all have equal voices in terms of speaking up, then we should acknowledge that. What is implied is that there is only one way to speak up, acknowledging one’s distaste for the new missal and the “process” by which it is now being “imposed” on us.
        But there are other ways to speak up and many will do so on the first Sunday of Advent by simply accepting it in a passive way. That’s speaking up too, but silently, the silent majority who have no real liturgical expertise, but are simply the “faithful” who exercise their role in the Church as they see fit.

      2. Fr. Allen,
        No one is suggesting that Tim is forbidden to support the missal himself. It seems to me he is trying to make everyone support it by appeals to obedience and the nature of the church. That is not “speaking up”; that is attempting to make others keep quiet. Sorry, but this isn’t right.

      3. I didn’t read it that way anymore than reading Fr. Anthony’s decision of conscience to go public with his feelings. Some could read that, though, as the only way to respond because his premise is the correct one. Thus words like “integrity,” and “courage” take on a meaning independent from the action–his is the right way. I don’t think he intended that though and thus what others of integrity and courage should do because it is the “right” way verses the wrong way of those who support what we’re getting.

      4. In repy to R.F., not Fr. McDonald.

        Huh? Why isn’t it right?

        If Tim thinks the new missal is better than what we have now, why shouldn’t he advocate that people not complain about it? You’re essentially doing the same thing, telling him not to tell people not to complain.

        There seems to be a double standard that favors activism against established power structures.

      5. No Sam, the objection is to invoking the theological grounds for having a hierarchy in the first place, as if objecting to the Missal and the process that produced it is equivalent to avocating anarchy, or advocating the abolition of the hierarchical model in the Church altogether. The objection is to raising the translation to the level of a de fide pronouncement, when it is not that.

      6. Rita, obedience is a value in the Church even in matters that are not de fide.

        Suggesting that one should accept the new translation and not complain about it out of submission to the judgment of the authorities of the Church is not a particularly strong or persuasive argument, but it is not an immoral one as you have stated.

      7. My dear Sam, once again we use words with multiple associations. To clarify: I was using the word “right” as in “proper” so the opposite is not “immoral” but “wrong” as in “inappropriate.” I agree with your first statement about the value of obedience, btw, but I think it needs to be weighed within an overall assessment of the situation in which we are asked to obey. We obviously disagree about the gravity of the problems at issue in the translation, so I am sure we would disagree in that assessment.

      8. At the time of Vatican II there was a huge education of Catholics about the authority of the bishops, the universal magisterium, and its whys and wherefores. The authority of bishops’ conferences and the importance of the triennial synods was much touted. Since then the Vatican has reduced the authority of bishops’ conferences to zilch (revenge for the bishops’ judicious reception of Humanae Vitae) and the triennial synods have become mere pretexts for Papal documents which pay little attention to what the bishops said. This is Ultramontanism, not Vatican II. (The Mass is supported by Sacred Scripture? Who denied that? Do you mean the new translations are more scriptural than those of 1973 and 1998 — that is very doubtful.)

      9. Tim has given no indication of having read the new missal or of thinking that it is better than what we have now. His argument is not based on the quality of the missal but on the idea that its imposition is a matter of obedience to the Church and even obedience at the level of de fide revelation. Indeed, when the missal is imposed there will be a duty of obedience laid on the whole English-speaking church; we have already seen that this is going to create grave problems of conscience for those who perceive the missal as a pastoral betrayal. It may even happen that the new missal becomes a dead letter — as so many Vatican documents have remained — and in that case the duty of obedience no longer holds.

      10. I have read the entire revised Order of the Mass and I do think that in many ways it is better than the current one. It id more poetic , and as I said before, there need not be absolute agreement on the translation. If you are suggesting that there need not be obedience because this is missing, surely you gest! Here’s the thing also-people won’t feel there is a pastoral betrayal here if there is proper catechesis going on in regards to the new missal. If people are told what they are saying and why, and people are encouraged to read the USCCB Roman Missal website for further details, then people are going to feel comfortable with the new words. (I might add-for the people parts-there’s only 4 pages of changes, but for the priest parts there is a whopping 19 pages of changes)

      11. I am in no way attempting to make others “keep quiet” but I am trying to say that the average “joe in the pew” has no role whatsoever in this and since we must be obedient to the legitimate authority of the Magisterium and the nature of the church, we have no choice but to support it since the liturgy is the primary expression of our faith and since the bishops are in charge of all things regarding faith and morals, they are the only ones who get to object about anything in this translation. But, since the Pope is the chief liturgist for the entire Church, ICEL, the bishops conferences, composers and everyone else needs to leave their egos at the door when they stomp their feet like a three year old because they aren’t getting their way in regards to the new translation.
        So respectfully I disagree with your following statement completly:
        “I don’t see anyone critiquing the missal out of ego. To say “check your egos at the door” is unfair, and entirely misses the point.”
        It is completely fair and it is completely my point and I don’t have to echo the point of others, and somehow if I don’t, I “entirely miss the point”. Like minded people can and do disagree from time to time, but even though they do disagree, people can respect others who disagree with them. And many people do not like change, even though we know that change is necessary for growth. If we don’t change, we remain static and we can’t grow. People have ulterior motives, and such. As the Genius of the Roman Rite says, there is a pendulum that swings where the liturgy is either closely related to the traditions of the Roman Rite or it gets away from those traditions. We are getting to that point where the Church is getting back to getting the traditions of the Roman Rite, like it or not. The Roman Rite is larger than any bishops conference or the Pope, it goes back hundreds and thousands of years.

      12. I would maintain that the present (1973) translation of the Roman Canon is closer to the spirit and sense of the original Latin than the unreadable new 2008 translation.

        The other three Eucharistic Prayers are recent composition, so “traditions of the Roman Rite” would not describe them well.

        The movement to creative and inculturated liturgy has been stalled for quite a while; the pendulum of restorationism is not going to move in a creative direction either. If the Vatican want an eloquent liturgy closer to the Latin, they have just blown their own chance of achieving this.

      13. Again, Rita, the bishops are the chief liturgists. And I don’t consider everything laid out on this blog as “fact”, but rather interpretation and opinion. And I am speaking up and I am speaking out against people who think that our religion functions the same way as our American experiences of living in a free society where we can voice our opinions on matters of faith and morals which if you read Lumen Gentium paragraphs 24 and 25 go against what that document had in mind for how the dogma of the Church would be taught Vatican II and after.

  29. Every part of the order of the Mass is supported by Scripture:
    http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/annotated-mass.pdf

    I start there because the revelation of our faith starts with Christ(through Scripture), then St. Peter, represented by our Pope, then by our bishops who represent the Apostles then it ends with our clergy who teaches it to us, the faithful. Now we live the faith from bottom to top through our charisms and our stewardship and how we live our lives and we are the ones who makes the parishes what they are and we suggest ways to make the liturgy more prayerful in our communities, but we are faithful to the GIRM and other liturgical norms that are revealed to us by the Pope and the Bishops.

    1. You have been misled by a right-wing publication. In fact the norms for episcopal oversight of the liturgy are clearly set forth in Vatican II and have been trampled on in the current process.

      Sacrosanctum Concilium 22.2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
      34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.
      2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
      3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
      4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
      http://ncronline.org/news/question-governance
      “Trautman asked, “How can this be? This was not a collegial process.” The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, he insisted, had made the bishops’ conference responsible for translations.”

      1. Correction 2,3,4, above should read 36.2,3,4

        The Council states that the Holy See shall grant other powers to the bishops as well — do you see much sign of them in the present process?:

        38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.

        39. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.

        40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

        1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

      2. I must note this from P. 36 of SC you quote:
        “These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
        4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.”
        Note the last part of the first paragraph that says that the venacular language must be confirmed by the Apostolic See(the Pope)
        Read 36.1 “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language IS TO BE PRESERVED IN THE LATIN RITES”
        Keep in mind that SC was only the “What” in regards to the liturgical practices of Vatican II, it was not the “How” and that was covered in the instructions that followed this document. And it was certainly not the “Why”, and that is where the Church has failed us all. This is exactly the point of the book ‘The General Instruction of the Roman Missal 1969-2002, A Commentary By Dennis Smolarski, S.J. (Liturgical Press, 2003) LA supercedes any other document on translation before 2001. From what I understand, this is the document that explains the hows and the whys that SC P.36 was referring to.

  30. You use the word “revealed” very loosely. In theology, there is one revealer, God, and the matter of revelation is saving truth, not such matters as liturgical rules.

    Also you completely ignore what Vatican II says about the revelational activity of the Spirit among the People of God, who have their own charism of infallibility.

    1. Lumen Gentium 12: “The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20, 27), cannot err in matters of belief. Thanks to a supernatural instinct of faith which characterizes the people as a whole, it manifests this unerring quality when, ‘from the bishops down to the last member of the laity’ (St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct., 14, 27), it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.”

      1. But also read Lumen Gentium Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, the last part of paragraph 28, and 29. Pay particular attention to the last part of p. 25 “Bishops teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. IN MATTERS IN FAITH AND MORALS, THE BISHOPS SPEAK IN THE NAME OF CHRIST AND THE FAITHFUL ARE TO ACCEPT THEIR TEACHING WITH A RELIGIOUS ASSENT. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to , according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

      2. Tim, I’ve tried to defend you as much as I can and I think there is some value to the view that people shouldn’t raise a ruckus about the new translation, but accept it in obedience, because, though imperfect it is an improvement and not radically flawed. However, your analysis in your latest posts makes explicit what was problematic in your earlier writing. The translation is not a matter of faith and morals. The reasons for opposing it that some people have can touch on faith and morals, but there is plenty of space for legitimate disagreement based on non faith and morals criteria.

      3. Many people oppose the new translation because they don’t like the traditional Catholic faith it expresses, preferring the paraphrase existing version which leaves more room for ambiguity regarding aspects of the faith they find troubling. We saw this here with the post about the Australian priests’ group & the discussion that followed it. They would not be pleased with 2008 or 2010. To me, the seeming digressions from LA, which are not that numerous in 2010, serve as a distraction from some peoples’ real objection which appears to be grounded mainly in discomfort with the actual texts of the prayers of the Roman Mass.

    2. If you have a copy of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, read Chapter 3, Proclaim the Gospel to Every Creature, which says that God reveals our faith through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. And the Spirit is only how we the people live our lives and how we practice our faith. And, we as the people of God don’t have infallibility, only the Pope has that. Also read Chapter 4 the Obedience of faith

      1. Actually you are also contradicting Vatican I, which ascribes to papal ex cathedra statements (if any exist — which is in fact far from clear) “that infallibility which the divine Redeemer wished his Church to be endowed with in defining doctrine in faith or morals”. If only the Pope is infallible, then the Council of Nicaea is not infallible, since it was summoned by an Emperor and the Pope was not present.

      2. Let’s not forget the point that Newman made — that even in matters of faith the laity may correct their erring bishops (at least in the sense of manifesting the infallible instinct of the Holy Spirit in the body of the Church and morally obliging bishops to consult that) — as happened in the Arian Controversy. How much more so in matters where the bishops have failed in their primary duty to provide a liturgy for the faithful.

    3. Read the document Dei Verbum(Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revalation promulgated by Vatican II and you will see that I am not using the term “revealed” loosely.

  31. I mentioned Fr Zuhlsdorf as a Nicodemian or Laodicean defender of the new translation — here is how he “defends” it:

    ‘There is some whining out there (mostly among liberals and aging-hippies) about the new translation we will start using by Advent 2011… whether the whiners like it or not.

    “Is the new translation perfect? No.

    “Would I have done some things differently? Yes.

    “Those who are truly vexed about the new English translation should simply stop using English and start using Latin. They can prepare worship aids for their flocks or people can bring whatever translations they prefer.”

    It is exquisitely ironic that the defenders of the new translation are its harshest critics. Thus Dr Vincent Twomey declared the new translation to be arcane, archaic, elitist and obscure!

    1. Joe,

      You read Fr Z to support your view, but his critiques have included that he would have preferred even more hieratic renderings, et cet. And he thinks the ICEL/Vox Clara process was too charitable to the bishops. So his critiques are not coming mostly from your place, as it were.

      And his fan base mostly is lathered up in enthusiasm for the new translation. Right there, your “no one” is falsified. Unless “no one” really means “no one whose opinion I respect”… .

      There is no translation that would have total support of the kind your argument implies would be required. The 1998 translation effort has its fans, but many detractors, and then again many supporters with caveats (like Fr Ruff, and I’d put myself in that camp).

      Btw, schadenfraude is a Christian value how?

      1. Schadenfreude is not a Christian value, but as Dr Johnson said, “I must have my sport”.

        “There is no translation that would have total support of the kind your argument implies would be required.”

        The 1998 translation has got rave reviews; I cannot find any for the 2008-2010 mess, and you still have not supplied any. Where are the “fans” for it?

        You admit that Fr Z is not fan, but you say his comboxes are full of admiration for the new translation. This might be worth checking, but as we can see from the comboxes on this Pray Tell site the defenders of the new translation never quote the text but mostly spend their time attacking its critics. That does not count, I think it may reasonably be said, as genuine enthusiasm for the product on its own merits.

        Rather than have me trawl through Fr Z’s unsavory site, you might oblige by citing some impressive testimony to the merits of the new translation. And no, “impressive” is not a weasel word — I really do want to find what the admirers have to say. What Bp Serratelli and Bp Roche and Msgr Bruce Harbert and my good friend Abp Coleridge had to say struck me as totally unconvincing, and it’s their job to convince. Where is the warm response from future users of the new translation?

      2. Ah, Joe, so I see, when you mean “no one” or “rave” you mean no one whose opinions you respect or people whose opinions you respect, respectively.

        No need to trawl for evidence for such a person as you in that regard, so I won’t bother. Your argument is simply conclusions in search of rationalizations.

    2. Have to give Fr Z a break, Joe! See that fund-raising thermostat on his blog? That baby’s gotta hit $2 grand a month to keep the bird feeders going. You don’t do that by alienating your base, as they say. And of the new reprint of the old Missale Romanum, he simply wrote: “Bottom line: I want one.” The next week: “To the donor of that new Missal: you will be remembered at Mass.” Guess negative commentary on the last minute revisions of the new translation was collateral damage.

  32. This may be another case of confusing the meanings of “authority”.

    Some seem to think that all authority is a matter of jurisdiction. That the holder of an office one may make rules for those subject to that jurisdiction is correct but incomplete.

    One who has jurisdiction, is “in authority” also has the responsibility to be just rather than arbitrary, to be objective rather than subjective in making decisions. One can also be simply wrong [morally or factually], yet have the jurisdiction to enforce what is wrong upon others.

    Ecclesiastically, it is possible to be canonical and yet unjust, erroneous, outside of established procedures, capricious.

    Just as an individual is obliged to seek facts and expert opinion in forming one’s conscience, those with jurisdictional authority need to consult those with expertise.

    Expertise is the other kind of authority. Those with the authority of jurisdiction do not automatically have the authority of expertise. Consulting only those already in agreement with or willing to conform to the desires of those in power does not show humility in forming one’s judgment.

    The liturgical rules, as revised by those presently holding jurisdictional authority, have been followed. That authority is able to enforce its decision through both direct and indirect use of power. As Fr. Anthony has said, the decisions are canonical.

    These decisions, however, have been made despite the expert authority, set aside by those in power.

    The combination of changing the rules and ignoring expertise opens the question of whether these are unjust laws, legal but wrong.

    There is additional confusion with the English word right. Besides indicating a direction, it also indicates correctness [cf. expertise], jurisdiction {civil/legal], and moral justness [human claims/principles].

    There is an unfortunate tendency of some to cite jurisdictional authority and legal rights when others are discussing expertise and principles.

  33. Separately, there is a problem of all or nothing approaches.

    One faction seems to believe that the English Missal has been on a correct tack while admitting a need for continuing improvement.

    Another faction has clearly disliked the English Missal for four decades. If there is to be an English Missal, they want an entirely different approach to translation.

    Why does this have to be an all or nothing approach?

    Why can there not be a variety of legitimate English Missals? I would rather have multiple legal and strictly observed and enforced options and translations rather than have every priest ex temporizing insertions, deletions, and translations.

    Unity does not require uniformity.

    There is another underlying complication. So long as we make arbitrary parish boundaries and legally require people to celebrate the Eucharist in assigned parishes, there will be internal struggles as to which version of the Mass will be celebrated at which particular time within the window of Sunday obligation.

    Assuming these boundary and time constrictions means that some will always be unhappy with how things are done at “their” Mass in “their” parish. There will always be this struggle to impose “their” factional preferences on others so long as members feel obliged to be in designated units.

    This is the same dynamic which results in pastors offering lowest common denominator Sunday Masses instead of teaching and leading liturgies with greater integrity.

    1. I don’t disagree with your analysis of the factions in the Church and certainly I’m one who likes legitimate diversity although that can become quite a challenge in a parish setting. We now have two forms of the one Roman Rite. That new reality is really despised by some especially liturgical progressives. We also have an Anglican Use Rite that uses a different form of the English language, different from the new translation and the older one.
      The Anglicans have had two forms of the English Liturgy for some time. I don’t think English speaking Catholics really want that; they want an accurate translation of the Latin original (at least some do) that is in good English.
      But the bottom line for me is where power lies and that I am powerless although I could easily be a control freak and drink myself to oblivion because I recognize I can’t control situations except on a micro-level and thus the need to medicate my angst.
      Ultimately it is quite freeing to recognize one’s state in life and the control or lack of control one has. It can be very healthy.

  34. Anthony, I’m not sure whether to begin with thanks and praise or congratulations!

    I appreciate, first of all, the fact that you care enough about the liturgy and the “institutional church” to have to struggle over this. Your honesty and commitment to living the truth is a great witness to all of us, and helps us feel sane even when we are pushed to make insane choices so that we can eat. It is difficult to know, sometimes, what choice is the best to make in all this. Your words here, your listening, and your example have been very helpful as I have charted my own path. I have chosen, whenever I talk about the new missal, to be bluntly honest about it: some of the final product is good, some of it bad, most of it a choice among equally valid possibilities; the process which is supposed to govern translations is good, but there remains in the hierarchy a codependent and often abusive tendency to engage in boundary-violating control tactics, which tendency the hierarchy shares with the vast majority of human beings; if we approach liturgy with the sole purpose worshiping the all-holy and life-giving Trinity, we can move beyond the imperfections of the coming translation just as we did the imperfections we didn’t know about for the last forty years. I have found that once I acknowledge the defects of the translation, as well as those of the people and dysfunctional processes that begat it, people look relieved that I don’t expect them to maintain a ‘happy-happy’ pretense about it. This makes it easier for them to accept what good may come of this admittedly imperfect moment in our history, and to continue to pray for the ongoing conversion of our whole church, including especially our hierarchy. May we all, each and every one, grow to embrace more fully our call to be disciples of Jesus. Standing up for truth is an essential part of this discipleship. Thanks so much for your witness to this!

  35. Fr. Allan J. McDonald :

    The Anglicans have had two forms of the English Liturgy for some time. I don’t think English speaking Catholics really want that; they want an accurate translation of the Latin original (at least some do) that is in good English.

    Fr. Allan,
    What makes you say that American Catholics don’t want two forms of the English liturgy? Is this just among the people you know or do you have some wider basis?

    1. It certainly is opinion only on my part. I think the two camps are Latin and English. I know some who simply hate change, no mater what, and would prefer to keep what we have and maybe some dispensation can be worked out for them. The rest of us will receive what we are given and wait another few years for some revising where needed after it has actually been prayed and we’ve become acclimated.

      1. Wishful thinking, Father. “Some revising where needed” is not at all adequate to deal with the general lack of linguistic grace in the new translation. And unless the Vatican changes the bullying attitudes so chillingly chronicled by Bp Maurice Taylor, as well as its illegitimate appropriation of the authority to approve translations (an authority that the Bishops at Vatican II fought to keep in their own hands, and set down in SC 36.4), any “revising” will become as much of a nightmare as the present translation has been.g

  36. “Suggesting that one should accept the new translation and not complain about it out of submission to the judgment of the authorities of the Church is not a particularly strong or persuasive argument, but it is not an immoral one as you have stated.”

    In parishes all over this country, people are being, or soon will be, recruited to implement this new translation. Armed with a few hours of “training”, they will be handed the task of catechizing the people in the pews. They will not have read the arguments of the learned minds (on all sides) reflected here. They will read the manuals they are given and mimic what they have been told. It will never occur to them that the people who are “training” them may be “accepting” and not “complaining” – acting in submission to the judgement of other authorities of the Church. The bishop who calls the translation “a blessing” is, for them, the church authority. He will be heard and believed. Forgive me, truly it is a shame, but they have never even heard of Fr. Anthony Ruff, read his brave warnings, or heard of America magazine, or ICEL.

    So, this time next year, the people in the parish who do complain, or can’t stifle the chuckle, will have the depth of their faith challenged or be marginalized – what was it…….aging hippy?

    Why is it that within all the discussion of liturgical reforms, no one remembers or mentions the faithful, mostly women, in the pews in 1960 who were praying the rosary during Mass?

  37. Eileen Russell :

    So, this time next year, the people in the parish who do complain, or can’t stifle the chuckle, will have the depth of their faith challenged or be marginalized – what was it…….aging hippy?
    Why is it that within all the discussion of liturgical reforms, no one remembers or mentions the faithful, mostly women, in the pews in 1960 who were praying the rosary during Mass?

    Eileen,
    I am missing what point you are making with these final two paragraphs. I am suspect that the reference to rosaries has hit a button of mine and what I am tempted to respond is only tangential to what you hoped to convey.

    Please, explain the references to aging hippies and women with rosaries and what you wanted to say with those comments.

  38. Tom, thanks for the opportunity to explain. For context, I wrote after #113 – the order seems to have gotten mixed up a bit.

    Fr. Z’s blog was referenced in #96: “There is some whining out there (mostly among liberals and aging-hippies) about the new translation we will start using by Advent 2011… whether the whiners like it or not.”

    My reference to rosaries was just this: In my mind, people of faith will always seek and, thank God, find expression. Obedience to church teaching was expressed in 1960 by attendance at Mass. But, being there, praying the rosary was far more expressive of some people’s faith. Of course, I can’t really say what was in the ladies’ minds. But my Irish father was never without his rosary. But people haven’t been saying rosaries during Mass for awhile.

    From very brilliant people here, I have learned that there is no clear consensus that this translation is going to be good for the English speaking people of God. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to accept that people of good will are going to be told that, if they explain them well enough, they will be embraced by their fellow parishioners. If not, it won’t be because the translation is clumsy, it will be because our faith or our acceptance of authority is, somehow, lacking. I saw that reflected here. People who ask the hard questions, will become “whiners”. Lacking the knowledge, background, and ability of Fr. Anthony, they will be quiet.

    I never thought it possible but, might faithful men and women praying the rosary during Mass reappear?

    1. Full active and conscious participation in the liturgy is central to the liturgical reform envisioned by Vatican II. Praying the rosary during the service was in many ways the antithesis of that reform. The rosary itself was described as a substitute for active participation — its 150 hail marys were meant to echo the 150 psalms used in divine worship. But they were not the psalms, so praying them meant only a partial participation in the liturgy.

      It may be that a partial participation like the rosary will arise as a result of an incomprehensible translation. It would be a setback to the full active participation that is needed for the liturgy. I hope it would be recognized as a setback, but I am not so sure when I read some of the comments here or at Fr Z’s. But full active and conscious participation should be the aim of every liturgist.

      1. I am an educated person who says the Rosary at Mass in both forms. I’m not ashamed of “telling beads” at Mass. I do use a ring rosary or another inconspicuous rosary and mouth the words so that I do not give scandal to others or upset the priest.

        Our Lady leads us to a greater understanding of the Holy Sacrifice. What is so wrong with taking Our Lady’s hand and following her to her Son? Most of the time, I just want to kneel by the side of the Cross. All the years of Latin and education mean nothing when re-presented with the Sacred Victim. I can add nothing to the Mass. It is often better to simply be present and be silent.

        The notion of a consistently verbalized and gestured “active participation” often obscures the reality of Catholic theurgy. The supposedly ignorant “women with rosaries” are probably closer to Abraham’s bosom than those who clamored for dialogue Masses and vernacularization on the eve of the Council.

  39. Samuel J. Howard :

    Tim, I’ve tried to defend you as much as I can and I think there is some value to the view that people shouldn’t raise a ruckus about the new translation, but accept it in obedience, because, though imperfect it is an improvement and not radically flawed. However, your analysis in your latest posts makes explicit what was problematic in your earlier writing. The translation is not a matter of faith and morals. The reasons for opposing it that some people have can touch on faith and morals, but there is plenty of space for legitimate disagreement based on non faith and morals criteria.

    But, Sam, the liturgy IS a matter of faith and morals. Liturgy is a matter of faith because it is the primary expression of our faith. And the translation is of liturgical texts so we are therefore, obligated to obey the translations whether or not we agree with them!

  40. Joe O’Leary :

    The point I am making is that the bishops, according to Vatican II, should have had a much greater say than they have insisted on. It is a dereliction of duty on their part to rubberstamp a mediocre translation, to allow Rome to have the final say the quality thereof (in opposition to Vatican II), to allow the bad translation principles of Liturgiam Authenticam to be imposed without discussion (entailing that one dreads to present any but the most woodenly literal texts to Rome for fear of not getting the recognition — which is increasingly made into a weird hurdle or moving goalpost manifulated by bullies like Medina, the Pinochet cardinal behind an awful lot of the present debacle), etc. Priest and laity are rightly angry at this betrayal by their bishops. Rather than talk about Revelation and Faith & Morals, neither of which are in question here, think rather of Pastoral Responsibility (bearing the abuse scandal in mind as an example of how grave a failure on this front can be).

    But the matter of revrlation and the obedience in matters of faith does go to this, and yes, pastoral responsiblility is important, but it shouldn’t overrule the rubrics and the sacred Tradition of the Church.

    1. Bp Taylor says that the Vatican recognitio was originally just a guarantee that the translations were theologically sound; only with Medina did the Vatican begin micromanaging the language of the translations (often judged by non-native speakers). Translation and inculturation of the liturgy does not normally involve grave questions of faith (though some nuts have tried to claim that the English liturgy has been infiltrated with Pelagianism and Modernism since 1973). Rather it is a question of pastoral imagination, sensitivity, and efficacity. But you are right that pastoral failure can undermine people’s faith — and that is precisely why the new translation is a catastrophe for the Church.

      1. Why do those who notice that ‘grace’ and ‘soul’ were written out of the current translation have to be ‘nuts’?

  41. It may be that a partial participation like the rosary will arise as a result of an incomprehensible translation. It would be a setback to the full active participation that is needed for the liturgy.

    Exactly! Thank you.

    1. Eileen, quite the opposite, the participation of the faithful in the full liturgy of the Church will only increase with a more faithful translation. Now they participate in paraphrase – a partial translation. It is as if back in 1970 we gave a vernacular version with one hand and took it back with the other.

  42. Joe O’Leary :

    What part of the document speaks of popes and bishops as revealers?

    SEE DV no 10. ” The Pope and bishops in union with him are succesors of the Apostles and inherit the responsibility of authoritative teaching from them. We call this teaching office the Magisterium. ‘ the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God in it’s written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.'(CCC no.85 citing DV 10. (USCCA, p. 25)
    That goes further to say that this teaching authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. And this teaching office not only serves God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, gaurding it scrupously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine communion and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one DEPOSIT OF FAITH everything which presents for belief as divinely revealed. And pay attention to this :
    “It is clear therefore that sacred tradition ,Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together each in it’s own way under the action of one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

  43. Joe O’Leary :

    Actually you are also contradicting Vatican I, which ascribes to papal ex cathedra statements (if any exist — which is in fact far from clear) “that infallibility which the divine Redeemer wished his Church to be endowed with in defining doctrine in faith or morals”. If only the Pope is infallible, then the Council of Nicaea is not infallible, since it was summoned by an Emperor and the Pope was not present.

    No I am not, I quoted from LG EXACTLY! read the document more!

  44. If your parish has poor pastoral leadership leading this change, and a weak liturgy committee who is in charge of this then people will not feel comfortable with the changes.
    My parish always has an education night on changes like this. We did when the new GIRM came out, and there were liturgy lessons read at the beginning of the Mass each week leading up to the day when the new changes were implemented. In addition, there were bulletin inserts for 10 weeks explaining the “what’s” , “hows”, and “whys”,and I’m sure the same thing will happen with the new missal. Incidentially, USCCB publishing is taking pre-orders for the new Missals starting March 1.

    1. More wishful thinking. “People will not feel comfortable with the changes” if the texts are as bad as most of us here perceive them to be even if they have the best pastoral leadership imaginable. We have see several cases of excellent pastoral leaders show their leadership by simply declaring that they cannot in conscience make propaganda for this mediocre translation.

      1. If the new translations are good, all that you say will come to pass. But you yourself do not seem at all sure that the new translations are good.

      2. “We have see several cases of excellent pastoral leaders show their leadership by simply declaring that they cannot in conscience make propaganda for this mediocre translation.”

        e. g. Cardinal Ottoavani, “”Lefebvre, maybe ++Dwyer.

      3. I didn’t know that Ottaviani and Levebvre ever had an opinion on our English translations. Please tell us more about this.

        awr

  45. The faithful will use their common sense when and if they are exposed to this hopeless translation, as happened in South Africa. But they will be muddled and mystified not only by confused people who claim that Vatican I and II teach that only the Pope is infallible and deny that Vatican II refers to the infallibility of the People of God, and who make every criticism of the liturgy a criticism of episcopal and papal authority on matters pertaining to divine Revelation — but also by prelates like Cardinal Napier who will treat them as rebellious and tell them to shut up. Most people will wisely decide not to get involved in such a fight, since they have not the equipment for it, and have not the time to waste dismantling the mystifications. Many people will seek a meaningful liturgy in another Christian Church (or “non-Catholic ecclesial community” as the Vatican would put it).

  46. Tim,

    I’m confused. With great pastoral leadership and a strong liturgy committee, inviting music ministry, choir, lessons and handouts, you are frustrated by people who chit-chat during Mass? You have my sympathy, but that is not my experience and the topic here is closer to what I would call “poor pastoral leadership” – defined as putting a great face on something with which you truly disagree in conscience because you are not free to voice your concerns. The suggestion was that one should accept the new translation and not complain about it out of submission to the judgment of the authorities of the Church.

    My concern is for the faithful, fully active participant of today’s liturgy who will listen to but not buy the “spin”. They will hear the poor and clumsy translation but won’t know the number and caliber of people (as reflected in Fr. Anthony’s post) who agree with them – because they remain silent.

    While seeking a meaningful liturgy in another Christian Church is a choice available, I was wondering if some might choose a traditional Catholic one – familiar to loyal and obedient women who faithfully attended Mass circa 1960.

  47. To those who have catechized on the new translation and perhaps have experimented with it at Mass, what is the reaction of the “masses?” All we hear here for the most part is the “clerical/professional” reaction.
    My sample is small, but the Catholics I have in my parish are from all over this country and the world. I’ve had absolutely no negative comments about the people’s parts which we have used in classroom settings with a cross section of the parish, sometimes up to 75 people.
    For the last two weekends, without saying a word, I’ve used the new orations and the new prefaces for Ordinary Time Sunday and for two funerals. There has been not a word from anyone positive or negative.
    I chose one of the Sunday prefaces that I find a bit difficult and used it. Not a peep.
    Now, in terms of “clericalism” I suspect there will be many who won’t like it simply because the priest doesn’t like it and he may have some legitimate gripes. But do the laity? No reaction from them in my setting.
    My biggest gripe is that the new prefaces seem to be set to the Ferial tone rather than the solemn tone. The solemn tone is what is in our current sacramentary and what I’ve been singing for over 30 years. I prefer it to the ferial one. Will the new missal have the solemn tone or are we stuck with the ferial? Why not both as in the 1962 missal?

    1. For the last two weekends, without saying a word, I’ve used the new orations and the new prefaces for Ordinary Time

      Well, Fr. Allen, you should know that the orations and prefaces aren’t meant to be prayed silently! 😉

      A little levity.

    2. Fr. Allan,

      Unfortunately, the fact that people did not say anything does not necessary mean that they did not experience any difference with the excerpts from the New Missal, or that they will not report differences in the future about the same parts of the New Missal.

      Our ability to consciously think about our experiences and express them is very much influenced by our cognitive frameworks, e.g. that we are expecting change, evaluating it, and that others might be interested in our experience of the change, or lack thereof.

      Also you are trying to prove the “null” hypothesis, i.e. there is “no difference” which is very difficult to prove. Journals typically do not (or a least did not) publish research indicating no effect until there was eventually a movement to establish a social science journal that would do just that. But it takes a lot of “no results” to convince people that nothing is going on.

      Also if we were to prove that there was “no difference” i.e. neither positive nor negative effects of the new Missal, we would be open to the charge that we have wasted a lot of time and money for “nothing.” I would not be surprised if that turns out to be true, but I do not think we should consider it therefore to be a success.

      But keep up your experimenting and generating more data. Perhaps you will come up with some interesting differences that will be helpful to people.

      1. Jack, in my parish the missalette we use from WLP only contains the readings and order of the Mass for a particular one year cycle. The orations are not in it, so people aren’t following anything for this part of the Mass. We never tell the congregation which Eucharistic prayer we are going to use. I’ve used them all including the reconciliation ones and the four other new ones that are in a separate folder. These are used infrequently by me, but when I use them no one asks me if I made the Eucharistic prayer up or where did you get it.
        But more specifically, as I have mentioned, I’ve been catechizing in Adult religious ed sessions for about five years now and I have people in those settings responding “And with your Spirit” as well as praying the new Gloria or Creed as an opening or closing prayer. I have our school children doing the same outside of liturgical celebrations. The children want to start doing it “yesterday.”
        I think so much of the hysteria about these changes and how people will accept them is a “tempest in a tea pot” and the hysteria, if any, will be generated by those who present the new missal in a hysterical way–hysteria is contagious.

      2. I really don’t think there will be as big a problem with people adapting to the new responses as some think. I used to belong to a parish that did an annual blessing for pregnant women before the credo. I have no idea where this blessing came from, but it was obviously an older source because it was in archaic “thee/thou” language and had the old priest/people dialogues (“And with thy spirit,” “And let my cry come unto thee,” etc). When responding, everyone with the handout said the correct response, and there was never any complaint about it. It wasn’t a traddy parish at all, so there wouldn’t have been any bias.

    3. Interesting. Nice experimentation! Would you be open to trying out surveymonkey.com (or some similar site) to get your parishioners to give you some feedback? It’ll take you 10 minutes to set up, then you just need to write the link in your parish bulletin (or email it to your parishioners if you have a mailing list), and then simply sit back and see what happens. How about that?

      1. I ask for feedback in catechetical sessions, and yes I asked about fifty adults in our social hall for religious ed after our 9:30 AM Mass what they thought and they said they didn’t notice, not a single one. They said, tell us the next time and we’ll pay attention! And yes, they have appreciated my experimentation and informing them of what is coming especially at Mass since the overwhelming majority of our Catholics are there and not at our Adult religious ed.

      2. Claire, if I were to use a survey of this nature the phrasing of the question would be very important. Do we want to incite people to hate the translation or to accept it? Depending on your attitude and what you want to accomplish, you could incite a riot or lead people to be in union with the Church. I don’t care for riots in the Church; I don’t see my role as causing that but rather being a bridge builder for people to accept the inevitable, like death, taxes and a new English translation.

      3. “For the last two weekends, without saying a word, I’ve used the new orations and the new prefaces for Ordinary Time Sunday and for two funerals. There has been not a word from anyone positive or negative.”

        How about if you insert a sentence that is complete nonsense, but strings together some church language? You know, you take some of the words we often hear in church, “God”, “love”, “hear”, “see”, “prayer”, “life”, “mystery”, etc, and combine them using a random sentence generator. Do you think that anyone would notice?

        For myself, the preface is the part of Mass when my attention wanders the most. I think that it is because of the structure of the Mass: it comes just after a time during which priest and congregation parted ways. First, at the end of the prayer of the Faithful, there is a moment explicitly for private intentions: that’s when each of us starts following our own thread of thoughts. Then we look into our purse, give some money, sing some music, possibly have a moment of private prayer. Meanwhile the priest does his thing at the altar, saying things that we’re not expected to pay attention to. Then there’s some automatic response, and then he starts talking and I need to bring my attention back to the altar — more often than not, by the time I have re-focused, the preface is already over!

        I note that the “ehow” guide explaining how to use the Roman Missal almost seems to advocate not listening to the Eucharistic prayer. It says the following when it gets to the Eucharistic prayer:
        “Turn to the Liturgy of the Eucharist if you wish to follow along during this time. Some prefer to leave this time for silence and prayer out of reverence, but it is okay to follow along, especially if you are just learning the parts of the Mass or want to know what the priest is saying during the communion rite.”

      4. Yes, the phrasing is important, but the response can be open-ended, and you can design your questions to be neutral (or you can also design it to try to influence people to answer in the way you want them to!). Your choice. Surely the fact that the wording of the questions might influence the responses is no reason to not do it, when you are the one who designs the questions.

      5. The only reason I would design a survey would be to see how I could better implement the new translation, not to foment bitterness against it or against mean old authority figures in this country and abroad.
        In consultation with my staff, my pastoral council and those who are already in our religious ed programs I really don’t see a need for it.
        My parishioners are quite comfortable telling me what they think on top of that, we have a pretty good relationship in that regard. Now other parishes might need something more than what I’m doing especially if they are only now catechizing about it. I’ve been doing it for over five years and most are saying enough already get on with the show!

      6. Claire and Fr. Allen,

        “For myself, the preface is the part of Mass when my attention wanders the most.”

        “The only reason I would design a survey would be to see how I could better implement the new translation”

        The only way we can effectively serve people is to listen to them; that has to be our first goal. That is what the Vibrant Parish Life study tells us is not being done.

        We need people to talk about their honest experiences at Mass such as in Claire’s comment. We are not going to get honest opinions by focusing on our concerns such as the New Missal

        I don’t particularly think much of Fr. Allen’s method of asking people their opinions in a large group, even in a focus group which is the way some researchers do it. You can easily get a silent majority if the first couple of people express what may in really be a minority opinion.

        The problem with survey monkey is that people always ask what does the questioner really want to know? it is very difficult to write neutral questions.

        Personal open ended interviews are best. The most important thing is to have an interviewer who is more interested in the person being interviewed and their opinions than in the survey questions or the parish program or the New Missal or a scientific theory or whatever. Then the people being interviewed just forget about agendas and the interviewer and talk about themselves.

        That is why I suggested recruiting parish council members for this. They should see their primary task as listening, not as supporting the pastoral staff, or making recommendations to pastoral staff. They should focus upon people served by the parish, just listening and understanding them as compassionately as possible.

        All organizational staffs have a hard time taking their blinders off since these are necessary to get things done. Parish members want to have a good parish experience; however many will not be honest in a group or with pastoral staff.

  48. Tim:

    “These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See.”

    You then say: “the last part of the first paragraph that says that the venacular language must be confirmed by the Apostolic See”

    It actually says that the DECREES of the territorial ecclesiastical authorities concerning the EXTENT of the vernacular in the liturgy — not the translations themselves, but the amount of vernacular to be allowed in the liturgy — are what must be approved by the Holy See.

    1. Actually, Jeffrey, it says that ‘it is for competent territorial authority mentioned in article 22.2 to decide whether and to what extent the venacular language is to be used(note the semicolon here;) their decrees to be approved, that is confirmed by the Holy See’, so what that means is the Holy See approves the venacular language for BOTH the liturgical language and the decrees that are issued regarding the liturgy as suggested by the competent territorial ecclessial authority. The Holy See has always had the final word on these things. It isn’t a new thing since LA. Read the document more carefully!

      1. Tim,

        No.

        Territorial authority decides “whether and to what extent,” and then the Holy See approves the decree that “this extent of vernacular” will be used in a territory. It does not say that the Holy See approves the vernacular text itself.

        There is no semicolon in the Latin. There is a comma indicating that such decrees (about extent) are approved by Holy See. You can’t always work from an English translation!

        In the first instruction on the implementation of Vatican II, it was stated that the Holy See approves vernacular texts. Several bishops in Europe objected because they were present at the Council, they participated in the debate, and they knew what their own document meant. With assurance that Rome would respect collegiality, these bishops eventually dropped their objections.

        This issue has been studied thoroughly, including investigation of the council debates (in Latin) by Reinhard Kaczynski, and he has published on it in German.

        awr

  49. I like the new translation. I think the last minute changes were regrettable, but it doesn’t not make to much difference to the quality of the overall result. I think we should embrace the new translation with docility and humility. No, it is not perfect, but is is a definite and great improvement. If we cause trouble and sow dissent against the new Missal, we are harming the unity and good of the whole Church. We should all swallow our pride and accept the Missal in docility and calmness.

  50. I also hear a LOT of self-righteous talk from objectors to the new Missal. Like ”I only stay in the Church because of good men like you who give me hope’. I have a good insight into human psychology, and I know it is so easy to latch on to an issue, such as a new translation, and obsess about that, when matters in one’s own soul are in a heck of a lot worse state that this new translation. I know, because I am human. It’s so easy to point the finger of fault and blame at others. Perhaps those who reject the translation could cast a glance at their own life and see how it matches up with the perfect ‘translation’ of humanity – Jesus Christ.

    With all due respect Fr Ruff, I think it would be more holy and honourable if you were to keep quiet. As you said, this isn’t about you. The new missal has been given approval and it is on its way. What good can you achieve by continuing to sow doubt and dissent of this holy and corrected translation?

    1. Remember Robert Bolt’s A Man For All Seasons? Isn’t there a scene where someone greets Thomas More with “Dominus vobiscum” and More responds “Et cum spiritu tuo”? The person who had greeted him says, “And how much longer will that holy tongue be heard in this realm?” More replies: “‘Tisn’t holy, just old.”

      This new translation ’tisn’t holy, just new. And it’s hard to call a translation “corrected” when there are so many mistranslations as well as grammatical errors in it even as it goes to the publishers. How many pages of mistakes have they found already?

      Instead of “holy” and “corrected” let’s just call it “revised” and “mandated”.

      1. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This new translation is not going to be with the Church for all time. Unfortunately, having a vernacular text means constant revision whereas the Latin text is timeless. We could just do what the Fathers wanted: retention of Latin with some prayers and readings in vernacular.

      2. Mr. Maguire,

        Not quite. This is a contorted reading of history.

        The fathers of V2 accepted a compromise whereby Latin is retained and vernacular is permitted, but explicitly allowed in SC 36.3 for territorial authorities (eg bishops’ conferences) to determine the extent of vernacular, and for Rome to approve their decisions.

        After Vatican II, following 36.3, every body of bishops in the world determined that entirely vernacular liturgy would be permitted, and Rome confirmed their decisions. The bishops who did this were the same ones who voted on SC. The legal framework for them to make this decision is found in SC.

        awr

      3. Fr. Ruff,

        It is my impression that it was not until 1971 that the episcopal conferences had the authority to extend the vernacular to every part of a public Mass. That is several years after the last Council Father went home and poses some challenges juxtaposed with the actual text of SC 36 or 54 where a mostly Latin celebration appears to be presumed. Maybe we should infer that local pastors were expected to choose just where Latin is retained in their celebrations with some allowance of diversity between parishes. Certainly we cannot presume that the International Group of Fathers who voted for SC expected an all-vernacular liturgy. As late as 1967 the Episcopal Synod showed little interest in an all-vernacular liturgy.

        It was Pope Paul who extended the vernacular in the Divine Office (mp SL 1964 seemingly going beyond the Council Father’s expressed desire in SC 101) but Pope Paul also published Iubilate Deo in 1974 stating his desire that “all” the people (the word “all is in the text) will be able to sing the “Gloria”, the “Credo”, the “Sanctus”, and the “Agnus Dei” in Latin. Pope Paul seemed to be clearly working within the legal framework of SC with I. Deo.

      4. JN,

        Vatican II speaks of a Latin liturgy with vernacular in it. But Vatican II also provides the legal framework which made possible an entirely vernacular liturgy. Both are in Vatican II.

        Obviously the hierarchy (pope and college of bishops) had decided by 1971, based on their experience with some vernacular in Latin liturgy, that entirely vernacular was desirable. When the fathers of Vatican II provided the legal framework making this possible, they maybe didn’t have in mind every possible future application of the framework, nor did they need to.

        The hierarchy made a decision based its sense of the needs of the church in her ongoing evolution. That’s what the hierarchy is there for.

        awr

      5. “The hierarchy made a decision based its sense of the needs of the church in her ongoing evolution. That’s what the hierarchy is there for.”

        Leaving aside the way different people would interpret the word “evolution” when applied to the Church, I guess we could agree that LA is another example of this principle.

      6. Jack Nolan —

        I don’t know where you get the date 1971 from. The new Latin Ordo Missae appeared in 1969, and already from Advent of that year in the UK we had a completely vernacular Order of Mass, followed in 1970 by conpletely vernacular Holy Week rites. I assume the same was true elsewhere.

        The phased transition from Latin to the vernacular (the final phase being everything in the vernacular except for the Canon of the Mass in Latin) was from 1964 to 1969. Once again, I assume the same was largely true elsewhere.

      7. Paul your dates are correct for Augusta, Georgia at that time too. It was Advent of 1969 and I remember our pastor telling us about the new missal, but when we got it it seem to me to be what we were already doing for about three years except for the extra section of solemn blessings. Of course I’m recollecting this from being a an 11th grader at the time. I think the offertory prayers and the additional Eucharistic prayers and the new “rubrics” as well as the penitential rite and the order of the final blessing and dismissal were well in place before the 1969 missal.

      8. 1971 – that is when the CDW allowed the vernacular be used for the entire rite.
        Aimé Georges Martimort, Pierre-Marie Gy, Pierre Jounel make this point in “The Church at Prayer” referencing AAS 1971 (page 80).
        J. Peter Nixon makes the same point here:
        http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1129

        I am not surprised to know that some did not wait for permission from the CDW. After all, we are still waiting for SC Article 36 to be implemented together with Musicam Sacram.

  51. As I said before- In the 1960’s before Vatican II-people prayed the Rosary in the pews because the Church treated the liturgy as a private prayer for the priests and the the liturgy was irrelevant to the people. We now understand that the Liturgy belongs to all, and that the Church with the inception of Vatican II advocated for the fully conscious and active participation of the faithful in the liturgy. We also understand that the liturgy is a communal prayer, and not just a “private Mass” for the priests.

  52. Joe O’Leary :

    You agree my diagnosis is partly true. Now please find the enthusiastic, joyful propaganda for the new translation taht will prove my remarks are partly untrue. I quote specific texts and show, by fisking them, that they are lacking in true conviction. Can you find counter-texts?

    I honestly think that you would find a reason to reject ANY translation that was faithful to the Latin original. It just so happens that you can mask your rejection in this instance on the flaws within this particular translation. Am I wrong?

    1. But the 1998 translation does a pretty decent job* (particularly in the propers) in being faithful to the Latin, and Fr. O certainly approves of that translation.

      * I’m not a fan of all of the 1998 translation, particularly in the areas of its inclusive language, its modifications of the rite, its multiplication of options, and its preservation of the current people’s Order of Mass.

  53. I am just one of the people and after reading through some of what is available on the new translation I have to say I love it. The “fuller” language give a complete image to the prayer that I think we were supposed to have from the beginning. It seems to guide our thoughts gently into the correct interpretation and imagery of the message. And when comparing to the ICEL version there is obviously something missing in the ICEL passages. Lots missing. We will be much better off with the new tanslation, maybe not perfect, but for the not so perfect parts I think we should use Latin. My 2 cents.

  54. Jordan Zarembo :

    The notion of a consistently verbalized and gestured “active participation” often obscures the reality of Catholic theurgy. The supposedly ignorant “women with rosaries” are probably closer to Abraham’s bosom than those who clamored for dialogue Masses and vernacularization on the eve of the Council.

    Still you need to be engaged in the Mass, and not pray the Rosary during Mass. Mass is a communal prayer.
    Your comment:
    “The notion of a consistently verbalized and gestured “active participation” often obscures the reality of Catholic theurgy”
    This is simply not the Catholic theological reality that has existed since implementation of the Vatican II liturgy with the promulgation of Sancrosanctum Concilium or the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
    In Particular, read paragraph SC P.26
    “Liturgical services are not private functions and are celebrations of the Church, which is the “Sacrament of Unity, namely the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.”
    Also in this document read the section “The Promotion and Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation.” P.14-20
    When you pray the Rosary at Mass, you turn the Mass into your own private function, and you disregard the precepts of the Vatican II and Post Vatican II liturgy. You claim to be educated, but you are obviously not educated in the norms of the Vatican II and Post Vatican II liturgy.

  55. Jordan –

    You are neither ignorant, nor uneducated. And the women and men who, in 1960, prayed the rosary during Mass were not either. They were originally mentioned here because they were obedient, faithful, and silent – and the original topic, I thought, was regarding the silent acquiescence on the part of our pastoral leaders when they have deep misgivings regarding the translation and the effect on the people in the pews. Your sensitivity to and knowledge of the teachings of the church in regard to full and active participation is clearly reflected in your concern for others at Mass with you.

    Tim, shamelessly, continues to ignore many of the words and, surely, the intent of the writers here in order to persistently promote his own agenda. In charity, I believe he does so because he wishes to teach and, to his credit, he speaks well and forcefully. But he does not listen. Perhaps, he does not have ears to hear. A shame, for there is much wisdom to be found here.

    When you say, “It is often better to simply be present and be silent.”, you articulate the position of loving and being so loved that all words fall short to describe the relationship. Thank you for reminding me.

    But what a world’s difference from being silent because one is intimidated against speaking honestly or because the words you are allowed do not reflect or ring true.

    Please continue to pray as the Spirit leads you. May you always feel your hand being held by our Mother. I will keep that image with me when I am tempted to chuckle or groan aloud at awkward words and phrases spoken at Mass in November.

  56. THANKS to Fr. Ruff for his letter and his comments about the fallout among various Liturgy offices regarding the new translation. However, I am struck by how a number of people who seemingly are “enthusiastic” about the new translation BUT really are not so much after all? It sure speaks to a culture (the RC church) where its people do not feel “safe” or “entitled” or “welcome” to ask for what they need (an approachable and understandable liturgy). In this case, the specific issue is a translation that provides the ability for the laity to continue to be allowed to pray regarding their needs, their fears, their thankgivings, their very lives in an understandable manner. How can we go about enabling the people of God to ask their leaders openingly for what they need and in a way that they will be heard and not discounted or ignored. To me as a therapist, this seems like a disfunctional “family” structure where the “parents” never listen to the children and wonder why the kids are rebelling.

  57. I have to say, from what I have read so far, I like the new translation. I am just a guy who goes to Mass on a Sunday. For a long time now I have shuddered at some of the English in the 1970 Missal. I think it can only be an impovement.,

  58. It is good to see that many people question the new missal. I hope they continue to speak up. It might help if one distanced oneself from the liturgy. Being a Catholic does not require one to love the liturgy or be dependent on it.
    Regarding the observation that the faith of the Church comes before the faith of the people (Peter Rehwaldt #5), how can that possibly be true? It is just an empty theological assertion and is indicative of dependency. The point is that this whole controversy is an opportunity for many Catholics to assert their independence. The Pope and his people are asking us to regress by meekly submitting to a bad translation. But isn’t that just how control is pressed on believers? The new missal is about just that: control, coercion, manipulation…
    Given the recent track record of the our spiritual authorities we should not believe in their good intentions. This whole mess should make many believers ask themselves why our bishops, popes and cardinals have caused so much suiffering. But I am not optimistic; most will swallow their pride and neo-catholics will continue to exult.

  59. The introduction of the new missal version, without consultation from English speakers, is in danger of pushing many people away from the Church. It is archaeic, exclusive language, written in ‘pseudo English’.

    Jesus didn’t speak Latin, he spoke a language close to Aramaeic. From what we know, he believed everyone was equal and spoke in inclusive language.

    Please remember: “we are not on earth to guard a museum, but to cultivate a flourishing garden of life”.

  60. [img]http://4respect.ru/templates/respect/images/rap-v_logo.png[/img]

    Добро пожаловать, на портал бесплатной русской рэп музыки 4Respect.ru. У нас вы можете бесплатно и без регистрации и, что на наш взгяд самое главное, по прямым ссылкам скачать альбомы рэп исполнителей в mp3, скачать русский рэп. У нас вам не приделся пересмотреть тонну навязчивой рекламмы только за то что-бы найти нужный рэп альбом с битой ссылкой. Качайте без регистрации, все ссылки прямые и рабочие. И конечно же у нас вы можете посмотреть онлайн клипы русских рэп исполнителей и посмотреть тексты рэп тем и почитать интервью с рэп исполнителями. Лучшие хип-хоп исполнители, mp3 рэп темы, рэп музыка только у нас!

    [url=http://4respect.ru/audio/114-grani-kipesh-2005.html]грани кипеш[/url]

    [url=http://4respect.ru/diskografii/107-basta-noggano-albomy-diskografiya.html]nintendo альбом 2011[/url]

    [url=http://4respect.ru/clip/176-klip-guf-200-strok.html]гуф 200 строк клип[/url]

    [url=http://4respect.ru/audio/251-legendy-pro-centr-2011.html]легенды про центр альбом скачать торрент[/url]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *