US Catholic’s Readers on the New Missal Translation UPDATED 11-12 and 11-13

The December U.S. Catholic (print edition, not yet online) looks at the new missalโ€™s first year in โ€œWords Fail Us.โ€ Itโ€™s a rather devastating critique of the whole thing. Their online survey was completed by 1,231 priests and 1,208 laypeople.

I know, I know, itโ€™s probably a self-selecting audience that goes to USCath, as is the case with the commbox at Fr. Zโ€™s WDTPRS or anywhere else. But still, this is pretty serious stuff, the reactions of the USCath crowd.

58% of the priests checked โ€œI dislike the new translations and still canโ€™t believe Iโ€™ll have to use them for the foreseeable future.โ€ Only 4% say โ€œI was unsure about it at first, but Iโ€™ve grown accustomed to the new translations.โ€ Only 9% say โ€œI personally enjoy the new translations as much as, if not more than, the old version.โ€ If given the option, 76% of priests would go back to the old translation. Over three fourths! Only 16% of priests say that the new translations have had a positive effect on their prayerfulness during Mass โ€“ 75% disagree. 10% of the priests have heard parishioners tell them that they were leaving to worship in other churches over the language changes in the Mass.

Asked to comment on the most difficult part about making the transition, the priest respondents gave an earful. โ€œActing like I appreciate the new texts when I find them to be terrible,โ€ said Fr. James Sauer in Evansville IN. โ€œHandling the disappointment of the people and realizing their complaints are well founded,โ€ from Fr. Patrick Connor in Nashville, TN. โ€œMastering the art of speaking like Yoda,โ€ said Fr. Brian Fischer in Chicago.

Asked what as a presider the new text has made them, Fr. Francis Gignac SJ replied โ€œAnnoyed.โ€ โ€œEnjoy saying Mass far less,โ€ said Fr. Stanley Robert Azaro, OP. โ€œFeel like a robot with no heart or soul,โ€ said Fr. John Francis Samsa of Apleton, WI. โ€œResentful. It was a poor process and a poor translation, period,โ€ said Fr. Jack Conley, CP.

But not all is a loss. Asked to comment on positive effects, Fr. Alan Phillip of Sierra Madre, CA said โ€œAt times we have had a few good laughs because of the convoluted language.โ€

Priests were given an opportunity to make suggestions to improve the translation. All the expected answers came in: get rid of โ€œAnd with your spirit,โ€ โ€œchalice,โ€ โ€œConsubstantial,โ€ โ€œIโ€ in the creed, and so forth. And this: โ€œThrow it all out and start over,โ€ from Fr. Paul Freemesser in Rochester, NY.

49% of the laity still dislike the new translation but will put up with it; 17% donโ€™t like the new translations much but donโ€™t think itโ€™s a big deal; 17% like the new translations as much as or more than the old one, and 6% were unsure at first but have grown accustomed to the new translations. Not exactly a happy acceptance.

Only 21% of laity agree that the new translation has had a positive effect on their prayer and participation – 70% of laity disagree. 25% of laity know people who have left to worship elsewhere because of the missal change. 54% of laity wish we could go back to the old translation โ€“ only 29% disagree.

So now what? What do bishops do with sentiments like this among their flock?

I know, I know, this isnโ€™t a scientific survey. But itโ€™s not nothing, either.

I expect bishops would want to do a lot more to find out how widespread the views in the survey are. Wouldnโ€™t you think?

UPDATE Monday morning and Tuesday morning: I see that USCath posted part of the issue right after I posted. I see a causal connection and am amazed at the power of this blog – makes me wish I had posted sooner so USCath had too. It’s here (parishioners)ย and here (priests).

awr

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, is a monk of St. John's Abbey. He teaches liturgy, liturgical music, and Gregorian chant at St. John's University School of Theology-Seminary. He is widely published and frequently presents across the country on liturgy and music. He is the author of Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations, and of Responsorial Psalms for Weekday Mass: Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter. He does priestly ministry at the neighboring community of Benedictine sisters in St. Joseph.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

59 responses to “US Catholic’s Readers on the New Missal Translation UPDATED 11-12 and 11-13”

  1. Fr. Jim Blue

    Just in time for their meeting! I am sure the bishops will take it to heart!

    Meanwhile I haven’t taken any grief for using the EP’s from the 1998 ICEL product.

    Reply
  2. Christian LeBlanc

    โ€œAnd with your spirit,โ€ โ€œchalice,โ€ โ€œConsubstantial,โ€ โ€œIโ€ in the creed, and so forth.”

    Wow…all that is fine with me. I’m especially fond of:

    “…command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty…”

    Reply
    1. Ann Olivier

      @Christian LeBlanc – comment #2:

      โ€œโ€ฆcommand that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majestyโ€ฆโ€

      Sounds like the people asked the Angel to carry the gifts up to the Lord, and the Angel refused. So the people are asking God to *make him do it* ๐Ÿ™‚

      Reply
      1. M. Jackson Osborn

        @Ann Olivier – comment #10:
        Mockery!… Pure mockery! That’s not at all what it sounds like. It’s meaning is as plain as is your pretense at lacking sufficient literacy to comprehend its meaning, What it really sounds like (dear me, it’s so obvious that I’m embarassed to spell it out) is that we ask God to command that the gifts be brought by his holy Angel to the divine majesty. By what cretinesque ratiocination do you suggest that the angel refused? More Subterfuge. More disingenuous treachery, more facetious pretense of incomprehensibility. More prevarication. More making fun of what is worthy of respect. More of anything it takes to discredit a translation which, warts and all, represents a higher language of worship and didactic worth. That is to say that legion are those whose overriding purpose in life and vocation is to reduce all of us to the lowest common denonimator…. language so witless that it really doesn’t say anything at all..

      2. Chris McDonnell

        @M. Jackson Osborn – comment #11:
        Oh dear me, with this out pouring of such melodious language you will surely be invited to join ICEL in the very near future.
        The good Lord suggested that his listeners began their prayer with the word Abba, the most informal term for Father.
        Let’s get back there,soon

      3. Todd Flowerday

        @M. Jackson Osborn – comment #11:
        More Latin dictionary users lobbying to join ICEL for the next round.

        As for the self-selected surveys, I certainly agree they’re not representative of the entire Church. Lots of people out there who can’t afford USCath, or who struggle through English as a second language (especially in Africa), or who are otherwise disengaged. And over the years, I’m sure their surveys have turned off enough of the Catholic Right to bias the sample against the Culture of Complaint.

        However, don’t expect the US Bishops to be concerned about really finding out what their clergy, let alone what their lay people really think. They shut down sex abuse surveys in the late 80’s. They refused to pay for the study on clergy shortage in 1990. They don’t want to know. They don’t care. And they don’t care we know it. They, and their ecclesiastical sugar daddies in the halls of the Vatican, absolutely abide by the principle of “What you don’t know, won’t hurt you.”

  3. John Drake

    I’ll be glad when this article is on-line and can identify the parishes associated with these priests so I know which ones to avoid when traveling.

    Reply
  4. Ellen Joyce

    I think it has been hardest on the priests, since the presider’s prayers are the worst part. I’ve adjusted to most of the people’s responses but I still can’t manage the Creed. I don’t know that the new prayers have *hurt* my ability to pray at Mass, but they most certainly haven’t helped. It would be wonderful if the bishops decided to listen…

    Reply
  5. M. Jackson Osborn

    ‘Wouldn’t you think’, indeed, that before plastering us with these obviously biased opinions from an admittedly self-selecting group of self-important complainants they would, indeed, see that the poll was ‘scientifically accurate’? I do happen to know some people who are less than thrilled with the new translation (I might even be one of them), but I do not know any who don’t think that we are better off than we were.
    The problem with this translation is not with style, vocabulary, or substance, but with a not-too-bright handling of the same. It could have been much better in the hands of more talented literary persons. But! Worse by far are the absurd and callous objections, the childish pique, to what was attempted by those who, astonishingly, find the vocabulary in some manner strange! It isn’t. It’s far better than what we had, and I should wonder at anyone who was put off by the quite nice replacement of the absurdly banal work that we endured for forty long years. (And, no!, the 1998 was not better.) I am SO glad that none of the priests in this poll had a part in deciding the literary style and limits of our liturgical language. I am thankful that their tyranny is at an end.
    And: this doesn’t say much for the Catholic faith of those who find a church home elsewhere because of this translation, does it? Many are we who endured the long dark tunnel of a vapid and uninspiring pablum… even traded Cranmer for it!

    Reply
    1. Nicholas Clapton

      @M. Jackson Osborn – comment #5:
      I find this comment unbelievable. Has M Jackson Osborn no ears, no eyes, no taste for language? All this “consubstantial” “merit to be co-heirs” (WHAT???) piffle IS dreadful, it doesn’t improve prayerfulness, it’s distracting, etc., etc., etc. If MJO doesn’t notice that, go back to school and get some literary taste instilled.

      Reply
      1. M. Jackson Osborn

        @Nicholas Clapton – comment #7:
        No ears, no eyes, no taste for language? Indeed, I do have them in abundance, nor do I need to go back to school to have taste instilled. It has always been resident in my being.
        Taste is that attribute by which I was made miserable whenever I had the misfortune to sit through a Roman rite mass a year ago when I had need to be away from our Lady of Walsingham. How jarring! How unspeakably cruel and tasteless were such expereiences.
        Now, you have something that is (amusingly) similar to Cranmer but doesnt quite make the grade. Still, I wonder if it isn’t you who need to ‘go back to school and get some literary taste instilled’. If you have your furrowed brow as furrowed as you can make over the new translation, it is you who needs to have taste instilled. To repeat what I said above, I am SO glad that you weren’t consulted about the new translation. I breathe easier knowing that the tyranny of the champions of banality and liguistic pablum (your word, ‘piffle’ fits perfectly) is at an end.

  6. Simon Ho

    It is interesting that, in a parish that I attended Masses these past 2 Sundays, the Priest was just starting on liturgical catechesis for the new translation – after 1 year of implementation of the new translation!

    At first, I was amused at the catch-up game that was going on in this parish. But I wonder if it was deliberate to give people time to get used to the changes before diving deeper into the texts. He explained how the unusual response “And with your spirit” highlighted that the Priest was not presiding in his own personal capacity due to his own holiness, but it is the Holy Spirit that empowers him to preside over the assembly. It made more sense to talk about that after the changes were done and familiar, after the people have had opportunities to experience the new phrases.

    But I thought the survey questions, as reported, seem poorly crafted. Like/dislike don’t point to truth and are very relative – it’s like asking whether I like tango. It might be more meaningful to ask whether Priests are slowing down when praying the Mass; whether there are phrases that catch their attention; whether they see more or less links with Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers; what images of God and of the Eucharistic Celebration would they use to describe their experience of the words from the new translation vis-a-vis those from the expired translation; and whether they think they need to catch every single word Father said.

    Reply
    1. Paul Robertson

      @Simon Ho – comment #6:
      Simon, the point, frequently made, that “with your spirit” refers to the Holy Spirit residing in the presider is specious. “Your spirit” is not the Holy Spirit, which is God’s Spirit: the response is not “And with God’s Spirit residing consubstantially with your own spirit”.

      The other oft-made argument that it’s a reference to the spirit conveyed on the presider at ordination is also specious, in that the same response is used for services led by non-ordained persons. “And with the spirit that would be conveyed upon you had you been ordained”?

      Anything other than “well, it’s a literal translation from Latin of a general greeting (that wasn’t originally in Latin for that matter) that dates back 2000 years and means something entirely different to how it is worded” is simply a smokescreen.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        @Paul Robertson – comment #13:
        I’ve asked it before and ask it again, if the priest’s microphone isn’t working properly at the beginning of Mass and after the Sign of the Cross, the priest says “There’s something wrong with this” and the people respond with the old response, “And also with you” or with the new response, “And with your spirit” which response cuts more deeply?

      2. Paul Robertson

        @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #16:
        “And also with you” covers all of you, including your spirit; “and with your spirit” restricts the statement of wrongness to a subset. The former cuts from the surface deeply; the latter inflicts a more targetted cut, smaller in scale but all of it is deep inside. It’s a tricky question. Do you prefer an open wound or internal bleeding? I guess that is an exercise best left for the individual presider.

      3. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        @Paul Robertson – comment #17:
        That’s my point, though, an internal bleeding is much more serious and deadly as often it goes undetected until it’s too late to be treated! ๐Ÿ™‚ That’s why I think the Latin Rite’s and most ancient liturgical rites use “and with your spirit” rather than the more banal “and also with you.” There is a big difference.

      4. Paul Robertson

        @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #18:
        …and I’m on the other side of the fence. I’d rather have the Lord with all of me, than just a part of me (no matter how important that individual part). “And with your left elbow” would serve as a (somewhat farcical) example. And the historical context of the greeting is that it was a general greeting in the source language. Of course, once you factor the insanity that is Liturgiam Authenticam, the translators had little room for manoeuvre.

  7. Chris McDonnell

    Accepting the critical comments regarding the validity of this survey, it was at least an attempt to gather informed opinion. If only the USCCB and other national Conferences had instigated the enquiry; but they have not.
    Ignore the issue long enough and it will eventually be forgotten. Not, I would suggest the most enlightened way forward.

    Reply
  8. Kenneth Jones

    All the expected answers came in: get rid of โ€œAnd with your spirit,โ€ โ€œchalice,โ€ โ€œConsubstantial,โ€ โ€œIโ€ in the creed, and so forth. …
    No great love of Latin there, it seems. Sad.

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      @Kenneth Jones – comment #11:

      Kenneth Jones: All the expected answers came in: get rid of โ€œAnd with your spirit,โ€ โ€œchalice,โ€ โ€œConsubstantial,โ€ โ€œIโ€ in the creed, and so forth. โ€ฆ
      No great love of Latin there, it seems. Sad.

      Most anglophone Roman Catholics have worshiped almost exclusively in English for two generations (save the ‘indult’ communities, now EF). Even before that, many did not have much of clue of what the priest said at Mass, save perhaps reading a few paragraphs behind from a missal. The question of the translation of the Creed is not a question of Latin knowledge, either among the laity or clergy.

      The Nicene symbol as issued in 381 CE begins with ฯ€ฮนฯƒฯ„ฮตแฝปฮฟฮผฮตฮฝ (pisteuomen, “we believe”). In other words, the Creed is the definitive statement of a council as an assembly of Christian leaders, not individual Christians gathered as a group. While the Roman Latin version of the Creed begins with credo (“I believe”), Mozarabic Christians began their Creed with credimus (“we believe”, just as in the original Greek-language statement.)

      The ICEL decision in the Sacramentary Nicene Creed to use “we believe” instead of “I believe” is not predicated on a difference between the original symbol and any one Latin translation. Rather, this change also highlights differences within the creed translations among ‘western’ Christian traditions. It is not out of place for Roman clergy and laity to prefer the older translation of the Creed. Historical precedence stands behind them.

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        @Jordan Zarembo – comment #33:
        Jordan, the average person in the pews has no idea what a Mozarabic Christian is. I doubt the “historical precedence” is the reason people prefer to begin the Creed with “we believe”. (And I wonder what these people say when/if they pray the Apostles’ Creed.) And I thought I recalled reading here on PTB that the ICEL’s Sacramentary decision to use “We believe” WAS in fact due to the original Greek text. To clarify: I find it easier to believe that translators chose “We believe” because it was in the first Greek text of which the Latin text we have is a translation (albeit an adapted one), rather than that they chose “We believe” because they found “credimus” in the Mozarabic creed.

        The Mozarabic version of the Creed exhibits the following features:

        * “Credimus” instead of “Credo” as its first word
        * “conditorem” after “et invisibilium”
        * Only one “believe” verb (like the other Latin and Greek texts)
        * “Lumen ex” and “Deum verum ex” (instead of “… de”)
        * “Natum non factum” instead of “Genitum …”
        * “Omousion Patri hoc est eiusdem cum Patre substantie” instead of “consubstantialem Patri”
        * “Que in celo et in terra” added after “Per quem omni fact sunt”
        * A genuflection during “Et incarnatus est…”
        * “Passus sub Pontio Pilato. Sepultus tertia die surrexit. Ascendit ad celos” instead of “Crucifixus etiam … et ascendit in caelum”
        * “Inde venturus est” instead of “Et iterum venturus est cum gloria”
        * “Vivificatorem et ex Patre et Filio procedentem. Cum Patre et Filio adorandem et conglorificandum” instead of “Vivificantem: qui … et conglorificantur”
        * “Et unam sanctam” (no “in”, like the Latin text)
        * “Confiteor”, not “confitemur” as you might expect!
        * “Expectamus” instead of “Et expecto”

        Why cling to the Mozarabic “we believe” and to nothing else that belongs to its tradition of the Creed? To invoke “historical precedent” for just ONE feature of the Mozarabic text seems like a convenient “abuse” of the Mozarabic tradition. Why not retain “I acknowledge/confess one baptism…” as the Mozarabic text has it? Why multiple “I/we believe”s when the text has only one? And why did the Sacramentary translators (and Vox Clara, over and against the rest of the translators) use “We/I believe IN one … church” when no “in” exists in the Latin?

        The Roman Rite (and not its variants in certain locales, but the Rite as codified in Rome) is what we have inherited, and it uses “Credo” as its first word. Even certain Eastern Rites use the singular “I believe” in the Greek text of the Creed they use in their Divine Liturgies.

      2. Jordan Zarembo

        @Jeffrey Pinyan – comment #38:

        Thank you Jeff for an excellent critique. I’ll give my take on one of your questions and hope that another participant might latch on to your other points.

        Why cling to the Mozarabic โ€œwe believeโ€ and to nothing else that belongs to its tradition of the Creed? To invoke โ€œhistorical precedentโ€ for just ONE feature of the Mozarabic text seems like a convenient โ€œabuseโ€ of the Mozarabic tradition.

        Point well taken. A mixture of the Roman and Mozabaric creeds would create a hybrid which is neither tradition. Granted, some aspects of the Mozarabic creed versus the Latin creed point to perhaps an earlier recension of the Latin creed family. A mixture of two translation traditions would falsely equate the two versions as similar in genesis and style. For example, you note that the Mozarabic reads,

        Passus sub Pontio Pilato. Sepultus tertia die surrexit. Ascendit ad celos […] [my ellipsis]

        While the Roman recension used today reads,

        crucifรญxus รฉtiam pro nobis sub Pรณntio Pilรกto; passus, et sepรบltus est. et resurrรฉxit tรฉrtia die, secรบndum Scriptรบras, et ascรฉndit in cรฆlum […] [my ellipsis]

        The more highly elevated vocabulary and style of the Roman creed suggests to me that the Roman recension used today derives from a branch of Latin-language Nicene creed development which is distinct from and perhaps earlier than that used in the Mozarabic translation. The Roman creed’s postpositive use of the conjunction etiam, for example, would be highly out of place in the Mozarablc translation, as the Mozarabic prefers paratactic sentences.

        I agree that the ICEL likely chose “we believe” as a nod to the original Greek symbol. I can see the position of those who wish to retain “I believe”, not only because this is current Roman and Byzantine use, but also because a incongruous insertion of the Greek tradition into the Roman tradition again creates a hybrid which represents neither lineage.

      3. Paul Inwood

        @Jordan Zarembo – comment #39:

        and Jeffrey Pinyan, comment #38:

        Just to set the record straight (yet again).

        The “We believe” translation used until recently is not and never was an ICEL text. It was an ICET (now ELLC) text that ICEL adopted for use in its 1973 Missal translation. (ICEL also adopted the ICET Gloria, Preface Dialogue, Sanctus/Benedictus, as did many other English-speaking Christian denominations.)

        As long as folk keep wondering why ICEL selected “We believe”, we’ll be heading down the wrong track. ICET were the ones who went back to the Greek symbol and pisteuomen in Prayers We Have In Common (1969).

      4. Karl Liam Saur

        @Paul Inwood – comment #42:
        Also, to further clarify, because the translation principles then in effect preferred translators to go to the ultimate source language (in this case, Greek).

        Both the first person plural and first person singular have an honorable history in the creeds of the Christian tradition; it is a subject unworthy of being made a shibboleth.

      5. Peter Haydon

        @Paul Inwood – comment #42:
        Paul
        Would you be able to help with something that puzzles me? My 1969 Simple prayer Book had the creed beginning ” I believe” and it was later, in 1973 I think, that this was changed to “We believe.”
        My 1969 “Holy Mass in English” printed in Rhodesia has the text “We believe” and the other changes made in 1973. The reference is to ICEL only and there is no reference to ICET. I expect that in Malawi we used the same version as in Southern Rhodesia, UDI notwithstanding.
        So were there two versions in use from 1969 to 1973?
        OK the text used in Southern Africa in the early 1970s is a minority subject but it poses a question as to the chronology of the changes made in the English texts.
        The Imprimatur is by Bishop Haene of Gwelo, most famous for its prison.
        Cheers
        Peter

      6. Bill deHaas

        @Paul Inwood – comment #42:
        Thanks, Paul – and would add that as liturgy developed in SC and the council fathers, we need to look at a number of elements – translation method (don’t think that LA will have a long life – very few experts endorse its methodology and approach); history – linked to catholic culture website – gives a good but not perfect overview; and finally, think we need to add *development* in terms of VII goals – full and complete participatory communal liturgy and the impact of ecumenism.

        Thus, with Paul’s clarification – you see why the church moved to using *we* rather than *I*; you also see the reason why ICEL in 1998, based upon experiences of liturgical change, did not advocate for changing the people’s responses or prayers – rather, it envisioned a more thoughtful approach that started with presider prayers, sacraments, etc. before it might have moved to other people’s parts.

        Would suggest that Fr. Ruff’s higher level and big picture points along with the 30 year experience of ICEL should have led to something other than what LA and RT and Vox Clara gave us. If you don’t know history, you will only repeat history.

        Peter – let’s see what Paul says but wonder if the South African conference of bishops and their choices were impacted by Denis Hurley, archbishop of Durban and conference head, who was a member and leader of ICEL.

      7. Peter Haydon

        @Bill deHaas – comment #47:
        Thanks Bill
        I am puzzled as to the difference between the English and African texts. This may just be a footnote in the story. I was too young at the time to notice. I did my first Holy Communion in Blantyre Cathedral.
        Paul might just know or know a contact at ICEL.
        Sadly the church in South Africa suffered under apartheid and now in Zimbabwe suffers under Mugabe. we should spare some prayers for the people.

      8. Jeffrey Pinyan

        @Bill deHaas – comment #47:
        why ICEL in 1998, based upon experiences of liturgical change, did not advocate for changing the peopleโ€™s responses or prayers โ€“ rather, it envisioned a more thoughtful approach that started with presider prayers, sacraments, etc. before it might have moved to other peopleโ€™s parts.

        Would it have been easier to change the people’s parts after, say, 60 or 75 years, rather than after only 40? Would it be because then the people’s parts would be updated to match the register of the priest’s prayers, with which the people would then have become familiar?

  9. Paul Robertson

    To answer the question posed in the OP, I don’t think any of us will be surprised if the USCCB (or my own Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales) completely ignore this survey. Equally, I suspect that they are not going to bother commissioning a survey that does meet scientific standards. After all, they have so many more important tasks to perform, like giving us a view of “traditional marriage” that has almost no biblical precedent, or announcing that our very religious liberty is at stake if we think that everyone should have access to healthcare.

    Having said that, the flat-Earth theory does have biblical precedent. Maybe that’s an issue they should concern themselves with promoting.

    Reply
  10. Jacqueline Field

    Why not revive the 1998 translation which was passed unanimously by English-speaking bishops’ conferences but rejected by Rome at the final hurdle? It can be downloaded on:
    http://rapidshare.com/files/387089704/ICEL_Sacramentary__1998_.zip

    Reply
  11. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    As alluded to in the article, I suspect asking readers of US Catholic to respond to loaded questions about the translation is like asking SSPX to respond to questions about the Ordinary Form of the Mass, or asking readers of the NCR to respond to Pope Benedict’s pontificate, or asking readers of the Wanderer what they think of the NCCB. I think if you ask anyone about anything in particular, especially issues of religion, you’ll get an ear full. Best not to ask someone how they feel today especially if you think you’ll actually get an honest answer.
    This so-called translation disaster has been the biggest non-issue in my parish since we started giving out free palms on Palm Sunday. It appears to me to be same throughout our diocese with maybe one or two exceptions of clericalism in this regard–haven’t heard anything from the laity about it even when I was illicitly celebrating the new translation and asking for people’s comments–ya’ll remember that and my prediction that this would be a non-issue for most?

    Reply
  12. Peter Rehwaldt

    The article is now online:

    http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2012/10/words-fail-us-parishioners-respond-new-missal-year-later

    Reply
  13. Fr John Wotherspoon (Hong Kong)

    The New Translation is due to begin in Hong Kong on December 2, mercifully having been delayed for a year.

    Even the simple English of past decades is not easily understood by the majority of people who attend English Mass in HK, since English is not their native language ….most are from the Philippines.

    Bringing in the NT will make understanding even more difficult.
    The NT will not be good for the people. It will be bad for the people.

    Yet the Vatican is forcing HK and other “non-first-language” places to use the NT.

    How can we support something that is bad for the people?
    I for one will not.

    Many articles about the terrible process and result of the NT are on my website http://www.v2catholic.com . Just put “new translation” in search at top

    Thank you Fr Ruff for above article. It is on menu of Nov 13.

    Reply
  14. Peter Rehwaldt

    I know, I know, this isnโ€™t a scientific survey. But itโ€™s not nothing, either.

    I expect bishops would want to do a lot more to find out how widespread the views in the survey are. Wouldnโ€™t you think?

    They should want to find out more about how widespread these views are, but that’s a different question than the one you posed.

    As for whether I expect the bishops would want to learn more . . . I think they do, but they also don’t want to look as if they/the Vatican and their teaching about the new translation are being ignored by the local church (both lay and clergy). If they do take steps to learn more, I also expect that they would want to keep whatever they learn to themselves.

    The bishops appear to me to be defensive about criticism on this, and would not like to have the discontent of a non-trivial but to this point unquantified segment of the faithful actually quantified. It’s a lot easier to live with stories that say “some are upset . . .” than it is to respond to stories that say “A scientific survey commissioned by the USCCB shows that X% of regular mass attenders are less then thrilled with the new translation . . .” — especially if X is (or is anticipated to be) a large number.

    Reply
  15. Earle Luscombe

    A year ago, I went out a bought a copy of the new missal. (In my mind it is a new missal, that’s what I called it back then, and that’s what I call it now.) When I first read the Collect for the Frist Sunday of Advent, my thought was: “are you kidding this is terrible.” Then I tried chanting, in recto tono, the same prayer, and the words literally leapt off the page at me. These prayers are, in my opinion, meant to be sung! Not recited.

    Shortly after this aha moment, I wasked one of the cantors I work with how many parishes are there in the archdiocese where this will happen. His immediate response was: “None.”

    Reply
    1. Paul Robertson

      @Earle Luscombe – comment #26:
      Obviously, this is just my opinion:

      One of the reasons that Latin was replaced by vernacular translations is that the Latin was inaccessible to the people who make up the Body of Christ. I have always found chanting to do the same for me. It ups the weirdness factor and turns the Mass into a performance.

      Reply
      1. Earle Luscombe

        @Paul Robertson – comment #28:
        Paul,

        Let us say that we shall agree to disagree on this one. My point was and is, that this liturgy, in my opinion needs to be sung, and chant would seem to me to be the normal meduim to do same.

      2. Charles Culbreth

        @Earle Luscombe – comment #34:

        +1, Earle.
        If memory serves, our esteemed colleague and PTB contributor Dr. Paul Ford was out early on the stump hammering this central aspect of celebrant responsibilities. Mr. Robertson’s discomfort aside, your maxim, as well as Ford’s and dare we say, the Church, endorses this as THE paradigm no matter what translation, language or variant rite. Sadly, I think that too many celebrants, whether sympathetic to their brothers polled by USCath., have used the mere existence of this “new” Missal to retreat from cantilating their orations, which they more regularly did formerly.

  16. Philip Endean Sj

    I feel very ambivalent here. The problems with both the matter of the new translation and its imposition are well known. Celebrating and attending Mass have become exercises, for me, in damage limitation, aka the minimisation of material co-operation with authority’s misguidedness. The fact that the new translation seems to have bedded down without open war breaking out may be a sign of unhealthy moral conformism–evil triumphing because good people have done nothing.
    On the other hand: the calm on the issue might also betoken a wise refusal to take the nonsense too seriously–there are other things to bother about. Would it do any real good to reverse things, at least anything the people say? Repairing the vandalism will be disruptive, and arguably more disruption is just the last thing people need at this point.

    Reply
    1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      @Philip Endean Sj – comment #27:
      I tend to agree, though primarily with regard to the people’s parts of the Mass (which, with a few exceptions, seem to me the most successful part of the new translation). But I still hold out hope that in 10 or 15 years the presider’s parts might get fixed. The orations in particular are really quite terrible and (pace MJO) on the whole worse than the rather poor translations we had before.

      Reply
  17. Jack Feehily

    The presiders parts are being “fixed” by priests who recognize that praying and proclaiming in the vernacular must first be intelligible and accessible to an assembly comprised of everyone from little children to the hard of hearing. Some of the worst transliteration’s can be avoided altogether like EP1. And there are a number of texts that need be tweaked just a smidgen. None of this is undertaken with any distorting of the faith of the church.
    Like our country, we live in a church divided. One thing that can be said of US Catholic readers is that few of give evidence of the kind of condescending and arrogant attitude that may be found on the pages of this more erudite chronicle. Excuse me while I attempt to take my tongue out of my cheek.

    Reply
  18. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    Like Fr. Endan, I’m ambivalent.

    Like M. Jackson Osborne, I see improvement in that the liturgical texts are now serious in tone, and are rightly striving to be in a liturgical register of poetic quality.

    Like Fritz, I think the new texts fail to be of high poetic-quality, are rather poorly done, so it’s a missed opportunity.

    Like M. Jackson Osborne, I’m leery of the tone of many of the critics at USCath. They seem to want pedestrian and simple-minded language like we used to have. But I also see how the church authorities bungled the new translation, divided the church further, and probably caused some folks (who would otherwise be open to good poetic language) to dig in their heels and defend the indefensible. We have to look at how the misuse of Church authority is pushing some to defend the old sacramentary in their frustration.

    Oh, how I wish the Roman curia and bishops had handled this well! Oh how I wish we now had texts that are accurate, beautiful, well-suited to proclamation, appealing in their lyric poeticism.

    The take-away lesson for me is that Church authorities have to be very careful and competent and wise – the bigger the change, the more the need for this.

    Actually, the take-away lesson for me is that top-down absolute monarchy doesn’t work… as we see in the sad, sorry scandal where that authority structure has failed us most egregiously.

    The challenges of being Christian in our highly secularized, post-modern culture are so horribly huge. We can’t afford such unhelpful actions by our Church authorities. We can’t afford to have the Church divided and the Church’s witness impaired by such abuse of authority.

    awr

    Reply
  19. Todd Flowerday

    #27 and #29, thumbs up.

    One thing to watch will be how easily the “highlights” of the horrific new presidential prayers make it into a public Catholic memory.

    The All Saints solemn blessing is a bleeping trainwreck, by the way.

    Reply
  20. Chris McDonnell

    Fr Anthony’s comment is pertient:This is where we are; the New Translation is in use. Now, how do we manage? I made this suggestion a few months back, it is worth revisiting.

    May I suggest a possible way forward? An announcement should be made that the New Translation will be in use for the next five years. During this period, the bishops in the English-speaking world will listen to the objections of everyone involved, both clerical and lay, and accept positive suggestions for improvements, based on experience. A revised translation will be undertaken at the same time, using the three texts we now have available: the one that we had been praying over the last 40 years, that proposed by ICEL in 1998, widely acclaimed, but never introduced and finally the most recent translation now in use. This should be possible in this time span given all the textual material that already exists.

    The resultant text would then be published and offered for discussion and final debate by all before it is approved by the Bishops and then by Rome. This would re-introduce the principle of waiting for informed comment before acceptance, a suggestion first aired by Fr Michael Ryan in his article in AMERICA back in 2009.

    I would suggest that now we must have a concrete programme that would serve to allay the fears that we will be stuck with this translation for decades or that there might just be another such imposition on us at some time in the future. It would acknowledge, in a positive manner, that all is not well with the new translation and it would bring together the many divergent opinions being expressed into a common cause, unity in our Eucharistic prayer. Is it too much to ask?

    Reply
  21. Claire Mathieu

    The take-away message for me is the dysfunction of church government.

    Reply
  22. Fr. Jack Feehily

    Claire Mathieu : The take-away message for me is the dysfunction of church government.

    Has Claire hit the nail on the head? Imagine that through some set of circumstances (i.e. revolution) our three branches of government were abolished and replaced by an autocrat who rules by decree. This autocrat would be answerable to no one but could choose to be assisted by hand picked consultors. This autocrat would also have the authority to appoint every governor and mayor. While some Americans might welcome such a ruler provided that he implemented their vision of how things ought to be, other Americans would regard themselves as living in bondage. So isn’t this a lot like the church is governed? Should we be surprised that some Catholics believe this is exactly the way it always has been and always shall be, while other Catholics regard this understanding of governance as dysfunctional because it denies common sense.
    Can we not have a hierarchical church comprised of servant leaders who understand their most important role is to bear witness to the power of Christ’s death and rising at work in their lives? Are bishops and priests required by Scripture and Tradition to lord it over their subjects in the way the pagans used to. To the best of my knowledge the only remaining “pagans” lording it over their subjects reside in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. Is there really something in the very nature of the Apostolic Church that forbids mandating deliberative bodies comprised of the ordained and non-ordained to address the many changeable features of church life and practice. Without compromising doctrine, couldn’t such bodies create a more credible witness to Christ as the way, the truth, and the life? Why should the replacement of Comme le prevoit with LA, for instance, have been left to a handful of prelates operating in complete secrecy?

    Reply
  23. Bill deHaas

    Here you go: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7647

    Suggest that an historical analysis is much more than any one translation method.

    Ms. Ferrone has also written on this? And it would be helpful if john francis robert weighed in on the original ICEL intent?

    Reply
  24. Jack Rakosky

    Somewhat over a thousand priests signed the whatifwejustsaywait petition and a similar number responded to this survey. Priestly dissatisfaction with the New Missal has not abated, perhaps it has even grown since it takes more time to fill out a questionnaire than to sign a petition.

    On the other hand only a little over a thousand laity responded to this survey, whereas almost 20,000 responded to the petition.

    Half the laity are unhappy that they will have to put up with the New Missal, 74% report they make mistakes, 22% that they deliberately use the old translation, and 54% want to go back to the old translation, but 40% basically say they have adapted to the New Translation.

    The wind appears to have gone out of the sails of the laityโ€™s opposition to the New Missal. They have always been unhappy about the quality of the liturgy, the music and the homilies. The texts of the prayers have joined that mediocrity.

    If only a little over a thousand laity were motivated enough to respond (I did complete the survey just to see what it would be like to do it), it is difficult to see much leadership coming from the laity on this issue.

    Again I ask the question that I have asked before why have the priests failed to organize the laity on this issue of the liturgy when the nuns have done so well in organizing the laity around their issues?
    https://praytell.blog/index.php/2012/04/30/two-petitions-liturgy-and-nuns/

    Reply
  25. Jack Rakosky

    The liturgy is an important issue in the lives of Catholics, and many laity are dissatisfied with the New Missal. The level of response by laity to the petition and their dissatisfaction with the new liturgy in this survey are sufficient that they could have been organized to change things.

    The failure of this issue to catch hold is not because priests are less respected than nuns.
    https://praytell.blog/index.php/2012/08/05/why-we-are-all-nuns-catholic-pride-universal-call-to-holiness/

    Satisfaction (which includes very satisfied) for nuns (83%) and priests (82%) was essentially the same, but there was less satisfaction for the bishop (74%), the pope (74%) and American bishops (70%) who are not different from each other.

    Very satisfiedโ€ was essentially the same for nuns (50%) and priests (49%). However the bishop (36%) and pope (36%) came in lower, and American Bishops (24%) the lowest of everyone!

    So priests like nuns are very well respected, far more so than the Pope and especially the bishops. So why arenโ€™t priests successful in organizing the laity?

    Perhaps priests donโ€™t believe in the power of grassroots organizing. They should look the at election results. Obama won both the primary and general election results in 2008 against an established political machine, and also won the election this year against a poor economy and a ton of money. In all the elections computerized grassroots organizing was central.

    Priests interested in organizing this issue should seek the help of nuns and Obama organizers.

    Obamaโ€™s tearful congratulations to his Chicago staff started with his Catholic organizing experience. He expressed the opinion that โ€œthings had come full circleโ€ and that he now expected only greater things from all his supporters in whatever they did in their future.

    Maybe some of them could reorganize the Catholic Church from the bottom up? That would be a really โ€œgreater thing.โ€

    Reply
    1. Peter Rehwaldt

      @Jack Rakosky – comment #46:
      Priests who stand up to bishops face different consequences than do nuns.

      See, for instance, “Doyle, Thomas, OP”.

      The issue is not that priests do not believe in the power of grassroots organizing, but they do not have the collective will to organize against the bishops. When even raising certain questions is dangerous (like some of those around the role of women in the church), I sense that many priests simply keep their heads down and hope someone else will do the organizing.

      Reply
      1. Peter Rehwaldt

        @Peter Rehwaldt – comment #48:
        From the second “update” link above:

        [ Father Adrian] Fischer is not alone. His feelings are shared by many of the more than 1,200 priests who responded to our survey, designed specifically to gauge how the clergy have handled the transition. Most seemed to relish the opportunity to speak openlyโ€”or in some cases, vent their frustrationโ€”about the new translations, though nearly half requested that they remain anonymous in doing so. More than a handful even said they would fear for their jobs if their name were to be printed alongside their true feelings on the missal.

        Whether these fears are justified or not, they are a sad commentary on the relationship between the bishops and clergy. I wonder what the bishops would make of the fact that a non-trivial segment of their priests are scared to speak openly, for fear of ecclesiastical reprisals.

  26. M. Jackson Osborn

    One is moved to observe the probablility of satisfaction with church governance and heirarchy on the part of those above who think a revolution of sorts is in order were their list of desiderata being realised. The ‘oppressed’ always wax pitifully until they, in turn, become the oppressors. (Many of us are relatively satisfied with the direction in which we are being led, and would be more satisfied if disobedient priests and bishops would conform to the recent Vatican council’s wishes by instilling great respect for and practice of the Church’s musical and liturgical heritage. No doubt, they would be the first to accuse the rest of us of disobedience were an oecumenical council and successive popes to tell us to disregard these treasures and hold them in obstinant comtempt.)

    (Nor am I one who is a blind and ultra-montane acolyte of any and all heirarchical activity: the disgusting and contemptuous attitudes and handling of the sex-scandals of recent times is unworthy, utterly foreign, to a Christian conscience. Yet, legion are/were those of all ranks, in and out of holy orders, who were more appalled that the sin was found out than at the stinking wickedness of the sin itself.)

    Reply
  27. Paul Inwood

    Peter Haydon : @Paul Inwood โ€“ comment #42: Paul Would you be able to help with something that puzzles me? My 1969 Simple prayer Book had the creed beginning โ€ I believeโ€ and it was later, in 1973 I think, that this was changed to โ€œWe believe.โ€ My 1969 โ€œHoly Mass in Englishโ€ printed in Rhodesia has the text โ€œWe believeโ€ and the other changes made in 1973. The reference is to ICEL only and there is no reference to ICET. I expect that in Malawi we used the same version as in Southern Rhodesia, UDI notwithstanding. So were there two versions in use from 1969 to 1973? OK the text used in Southern Africa in the early 1970s is a minority subject but it poses a question as to the chronology of the changes made in the English texts. The Imprimatur is by Bishop Haene of Gwelo, most famous for its prison. Cheers Peter

    Yes, several versions in use at the same time, the version depending on where you were.

    In England and Wales, the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, etc in use from 1966 used a national translation. In 1972, the E&W Conference approved the ICET texts for use (they were already being sung!), knowing that they would appear in the 1973 ICEL Sacramentary (which, incidentally, did not appear in E&W until 1975, as “The Roman Missal”).

    I believe that in the US their national version of the Ordinary was published in 1965, changing to ICET in 1973. American sacramentaries did not acknowledge ICET at all, only ICEL. I can believe that something similar happened in Rhodesia. (UK altar missals of the period do contain an ICET acknowledgement as well as one to ICEL. )

    The only unanswered questions are why Rhodesia was using the ICET text so early (perhaps the local episcopal conference approved it earlier than anyone else?) and how (if I have understood you correctly) Rhodesia could have printed an ICEL acknowledgement in 1969, when ICEL did not produce its own Order of Mass until 1970 and even then did not immediately incorporate the ICET texts into it.

    Are you sure your Rhodesian “We believe” text is identical with the ICET text in the 1973 Missal and not a different local text also beginning “We believe” ?

    ICEL has a rather checkered history when it comes to appropriating other people’s texts without acknowledgement. As well as adopting the ICET texts in the Order of Mass, it pinched the E&W translation of the Ubi caritas, changed one word, and then passed it off as its own work. It adopted the acclamation “Christ had died”, the work of an anonymous Anglican clergyman in the mid-1960s, and claimed copyright in it. It also tried to copyright phrases such as “Through Christ our Lord. Amen”, despite the fact that our Anglican friends had already been using them for a number of years.

    Today, it is still doing the same. It has taken the ICET Sanctus, the one used until recently, changed “power and might” to “hosts”, and claims that this is now an ICEL copyright text. That one-word change is not sufficient to constitute a new text in copyright law. It does not, I am informed, charge royalties on the use of the text, but insists that it has to claim copyright in it in order to administer it and protect its integrity as a liturgical text. Legally, this is nonsense.

    Reply
    1. Peter Haydon

      @Paul Inwood – comment #51:
      Thank you Paul
      Yes I think it was the same text but would need to recheck carefully particularly if there might be single word differences. Would you like a copy?
      From what you say it was a right muddle.
      Strictly speaking the territory should have been called Southern Rhodesia but I guess that the church adapted to local custom. Other local customs might have crept in too.
      Malawi may have been black Africa but Dr Banda took an independent line and traded with the white ruled states. I doubt that the church in the country was up to preparing its own texts. Many of the manufactued goods came from Rhodesia. We could not go there as my father worked for the UK government.

      Reply
    2. Mgr Bruce Harbert

      @Paul Inwood – comment #51:
      Paul, it is a mistake to attribute the new translation of the Sanctus to ICEL. The final form of the entire English Missal was decided by the Congregation for Divine Worship in consultation with the Vox Clara Committee.

      Reply
    3. Peter Haydon

      @Paul Inwood – comment #51:
      Paul
      I looked at the 1969 Rhodesian order of Mass and think that the only differences with the 1973 English text are in the Creed. These are minor.

      … begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
      … by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
      … On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended ….

      My only comment is surprise at the fact of the differences. Wiser heads may spot a significance that I have missed.
      There may be other differences elsewhere that I have missed.

      Reply
  28. Michael Kerrigan

    Chris McDonnell : Accepting the critical comments regarding the validity of this survey, it was at least an attempt to gather informed opinion. If only the USCCB and other national Conferences had instigated the enquiry; but they have not. Ignore the issue long enough and it will eventually be forgotten. Not, I would suggest the most enlightened way forward.

    Reply
  29. Michael Kerrigan

    Well said Chris!

    Reply
  30. Richard Novak

    Having read this post and the two updates from U.S. Catholic, I strongly resonate with many of the comments by priests and laity expressing their serious issues with the content, process and implementation of the new missal. This entire scenario is another confirmation for me that the “teaching church” is not also a “listening church.”

    As one formed in the pre-Vatican 2 church, I found the Tridentine Mass truly inspiring and nourishing and I embraced all the other elements of Catholic practice. During my undergrad years, I closely followed Vatican 2 and studied developments in the liturgical, biblical and ecumenical movements – resulting in a major “conversion” by the end of the council. We were fortunate in Detroit under the dynamic and collaborative leadership of Cardinal John Dearden to implement Vatican 2 on many fronts, particularly the liturgy. The 1973 Sacramentary texts (and its subsequent revisions) were well received and more easily understood.

    That’s no longer the case with the new translations. However, rather than simply leaving the church (at least for now), I’m aware of scattered parishes and “house churches” or intentional communities in metro Detroit where either the new missal is generally used (but with modifications of awkward or questionable passages), or else the 1973 Sacramentary continues to be used (based on the community’s decision). The faith life and ministry outreach of these communities resembles the house churches of Acts and Paul’s letters: centered on the Word and Eucharist in the context of a “living” and meaningful liturgy. So there are some signs of hope despite the liturgical retrogression in recent decades.

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

Discover more from Home

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

Continue reading