One-Fourth of Younger Priests Dislike New Roman Missal

As Pray Tell reported this week, a majority of all U.S. Catholic priests, by a 52/42 margin, do not like the new Roman Missal implemented in Advent 2011. Only 39% think that the new missal is an improvement on the previous translation, and 54% agree that the new translation urgently needs to be revised. 57% do not wish other rites (marriage, confirmation) to be translated in a similar style as the new missal, though the bishops are in fact proceeding with this work. 63% are not confident that the views of priests will be taken seriously in future decision about liturgical translation.

The study was carried out by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) and Georgetown University as a part of a larger study on parish life. According to CARA’s analysis, there is 95% certainty that the results from the scientifically representative sample are within 4.2% of the views of all U.S. priests in parish ministry.

At Pray Tell’s request, CARA has also provided a breakdown of the views of younger priests compared to older priests. These results distinguish between the views of  “Clergy of the Post-Vatican II and Millennial Generations” (born 1961 or later) and “Clergy of the Vatican II and Older Generations” (born 196o or before).

As perhaps to be expected, given the widespread perception that younger priests are more conservative in their theological views and more inclined toward obedience to church authorities, younger priests are more supportive of the new missal than their elders. But even within this cohort, nearly one-quarter (24%) dislike the new missal. 18% say that they were apprehensive before it was introduced and still do not like, and a further 6% say that they were looking forward to it but have changed their mind and now do not like it. 70% of younger priests say either that they were looking forward to it and still like it (54%) or that they were apprehensive but now like it (16%).

Further findings about younger priests include the following:

* 72% of younger priests like the more formal style of language of the new text (33% strongly so), while 26% do not (9% strongly so).
* Two thirds of younger priests think the new translation is an improvement on the old one, while 27% think it is not an improvement.
* 26% of younger priests think the new translation urgently needs to be revised, while 64% disagree with this.
* Only a minority (44%) of younger priests are confident that the views of priests will be taken seriously in future translation decisions, while a further 28% are not confident of this. Over one-fourth (27%) of younger priests do not know.
* Two-thirds (67%) of younger priests approve of the Holy See’s leadership in bringing about the new missal, while one-quarter (24%) do not.
* By a similar margin, 67/26, younger priests think that work should go forward translating other rites (marriage, confirmation) in the same style as the new missal

Because about two-thirds of all U.S. priests are old rather than young, the more favorable views of younger priests only go some distance in moderating the overall negative views of all priests toward the new missal.

Bottom line: the odds are 2-1 that your priest is old rather than young. If he is old, it is a bit more than likely that he doesn’t like the new missal. If he is young, there are three chances in four that he likes the new missal.

What weight you give to all that probably depends upon your views of the new missal.

Here’s Pray Tell’s proposal: let’s take the views of all clergy seriously – old and young.

Fr. Anthony Ruff has written an editorial on the way forward with the missal.

awr

Share:

55 comments

  1. I’d love to see CARA or someone else conduct a survey of the laity on the new Missal, particularly when the responses could be easily compared with this survey, such as their views on the more formal style of language and whether the new missal is an improvement over the old one.

    The missal serves the whole church, not merely those who lead the prayers.

    1. @Peter Rehwaldt – comment #4:

      To partially answer your question, CARA did a survey back in September 2012 and found “that that 70 percent of U.S. adult self-identified Catholics agree with the statement, ‘Overall, I think the new translation of the Mass is a good thing.'”

      http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholics-strongly-support-new-mass-translation-after-first-year/

      Another highlight:
      “Commissioned by the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America, the survey asked participants whether they have a good understanding of the meaning of the prayers recited by the priest and people at Mass, and if the words of those prayers make it easier for them to participate in the Mass.

      They were also asked whether those prayers of the Mass help them feel closer to God and inspire them to be a more faithful Catholic in their daily lives.

      In each case, at least three-quarters of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed. Catholics who attend Mass more regularly were more likely than others to strongly agree with each statement.”

      Apparently most people think they can understand the new translation well enough and it benefits their spiritual lives. The article notes that this is not different from a survey of the old translation.

      Also I suspect the 1998 translation would have received similar responses.

      1. @Devin Rice – comment #11:

        One of the less reported elements of CARA’s 2012 survey of US Catholics’ opinions about “the new translation of the Mass” is a clear correlation between their perception of the amount of change that occurred and their dissatisfaction with the translation.

        Among those who believe the language “remained about the same” or “changed to a small extent,” 77% agreed or strongly agreed that the new translation “is a good thing.” Among those who see it as “changed to a moderate extent,” approval drops to 60%, while only one third (34%) of those who think it “changed to a great extent” view the new translation positively.

        What does this say about the extent to which people are aware of the changes, about how much attention they give to the prayers?

      2. @Jeff Rexhausen – comment #26:
        It could mean at least of one of two things. First, like you said, they just are not paying attention to the prayers which is quite possible.

        The second possibility is that they are concerned primarily about the Order of the Mass and their parts when answering the question. In that case, there wasn’t that big of a difference. If you don’t study the collects and prefaces, as long as you can understand the texts during the liturgy you probably wouldn’t notice a big difference no matter how the texts were translated, just maybe an impression of the overall style.

        The more recent CARA study indicated that despite their criticisms, 59% of lay leaders had a positive attitude towards the new texts. This group is at least more likely to be paying attention to the prayers.

        While I do believe you make a good point, I am also a cynic (not about you in particular). If the survey had said the most catholics disapprove of the translation, progressives would have used this as definitive proof of the new translation’s failings, whereas traditionalists would have argued something along the lines that people are not used to change, they had been fed the stuff of 1973 for so long that it will take a while for the adjustment. The argument is really about how good the translation fits into our school of thought and to some extent it is irrelevant what the priests and laity think. This is fine to argue, I just wish it to be explicitly stated.

  2. With regard to the stat about whether or not the majority of priests feel they will be “listened to” regarding future translation questions, I responded in the negative…but also that I HOPED that priests would NOT be listened to. Latin has been optional in seminaries until very recently and liturgical formation has been greatly lacking.

    What possible expertise regarding Latin translation could your typical parish priest be expected to provide?

    If the Church had decided that each country was create its own missal with its own proper rite, then certainly parish priests would be essential to consult as we know our sheep best. However, that is NOT what this was. The task was not to create an American missal but to translate the Roman Missal.

    While certainly there is an art to translating, the vast majority of parish priests don’t have even a basic knowledge of Latin sufficient to contribute anything of meaning to what is a TRANSLATION project.

    As evidence of this, 90% of the time when a priest would share with me that he didn’t like some particular translation, the reality was that he didn’t like what the Latin said. One can argue about “style,” but most of the time the problem was that people were hearing the prayers of the Roman Rite for the first time. It’s our job as pastors to form them to understand the language of the liturgy. The fact that priests also need this formation is not so surprising.

    I don’t intend by the above to imply that the translation was done perfectly (or that this is even possible). Fr. Ruff and others on this forum are truly experts and have every right to point out problems that they see. I have mine too. But what about your average parish priest? Even though I have an S.T.L. in liturgy and know Latin well enough, I would in no way consider myself qualified to work on the translation of liturgical documents nor would I think it appropriate for me to be “listened to” by those who are in fact truly experts.

    1. @Fr. Shawn P. Tunink – comment #5:
      And yet that is almost the exact opposite of what the Bishop of Rome preaches these days. (See EG 135ff) What he says about the homily seems a good thing to model for elsewhere:

      Christian preaching thus finds in the heart of people and their culture a source of living water, which helps the preacher to know what must be said and how to say it. Just as all of us like to be spoken to in our mother tongue, so too in the faith we like to be spoken to in our “mother culture,” our native language (cf. 2 Macc 7:21, 27), and our heart is better disposed to listen. This language is a kind of music which inspires encouragement, strength and enthusiasm. (EG 139)

      Should we not have encouragement, strength, and enthusiasm more than rational competence? Should we not have more, on behalf of the people, of a mother culture and language. And less of the Latin?

    2. @Fr. Shawn P. Tunink – comment #5:
      I don’t see any reason why priests couldn’t be consulted as to how effective the translation is as sung and spoke prayer. I’ve done translations from French that I’ve had people who don’t know French, or don’t have access to the French original, read over simply to see how it reads in English.

      In fact, when making a translation I typically make a literal translation, set it aside for a few days, then try to render it into normal sounding English, and finally check it against the French to make sure that I haven’t altered the meaning. Only the first and last steps require knowledge of French, but all of the steps are part of the translation process.

      1. @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #9:
        I certainly agree with your second paragraph here. I’m doing that a lot these days as I’m in Latin class working on my Canon Law degree. Obviously I get graded on how well I can take a linguistic construct in Latin and put it into the right construct in English. It’s not easy and can certainly be more art than science at time. No argument there.

        I guess I struggle with the idea of judging the missal translation based on how “effective” it is, as you put it.

        These days its seems that just about everyone has come around to agreeing that the Sacramentary was in need of a new translating. However, if I ask the question, “Was it effective?” then I’d have to say that the Sacramentary was highly effective. It produced such great saints as John Paull II and Mother Teresa. It nourished my spiritual life for almost my entire life, and I’ve turned out basically OK. It brought Jesus to me every day in the Eucharist. While no one would praise the Sacramentary for its brilliance of translation, “Was it effective?” I’d have to say yes, very much so, and yet no one really thinks we should go back.

        By the same standard we’d also have to admit that the untranslated Latin is the most effective thing the Church has ever done, given the long history of the Missal of Pius V. There aren’t too many calls to go back to that either. So, I’m not sure if “effectiveness” is a benchmark that we should use or that it would even be possible to use in any objective sense to judge a translation.

      2. @Fr. Shawn P. Tunink – comment #13:

        Please don’t put words in other people’s mouth, Reverend. I find far greater beauty in the Sacramentary and would return to it’s use in a heartbeat.

      3. @Fr. Shawn P. Tunink – comment #13:
        Fr. Tunink, I think you are conflating the effectiveness of a translation with the efficacy of the sacrament.

        In asking about the effectiveness of anything, one must ask, “effective to what end?” As I would understand it, a translation is effective if it conveys the meaning of the original in a way that can be grasped readily by readers/hearers. I would further venture that generally the most effective translation is one that does not seem to the readers/hearers as having any origin other than the target language. I realize that not everyone would agree with this latter point. In fact, I have heard some (not you, of course) praise the current translation precisely for reminding its hearers that it is a translation. This strikes me as bizarre. If that is the effect you’re going for, just use the Latin.

      4. @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #30:
        >>In fact, I have heard some (not you, of course) praise the current translation precisely for reminding its hearers that it is a translation. This strikes me as bizarre

        I have made that argument in the past.

        But I am completely unsure at this time if I still agree with it or not. I think maybe I don’t. But I might.

    3. @Fr. Shawn P. Tunink – comment #5:

      Fr. Tunik: Even though I have an S.T.L. in liturgy and know Latin well enough, I would in no way consider myself qualified to work on the translation of liturgical documents nor would I think it appropriate for me to be “listened to” by those who are in fact truly experts.

      The notion that liturgical books are created in the lofty posts of periti and handed down to us as if they were sacred tablets is a more recent idea. 500 years of the promulgation of highly standardized liturgical books has conditioned us to consider liturgical books to be indelible in meaning once printed, bound, and distributed.

      This model does not hold well outside of the printed word and printed world. The sacramentaries of late antiquity and of the medieval period are fascinating because the orthography and punctuation as interpreted by editors are merely the suggestions of modern minds. Modern redactors often place punctuation in ambiguous places. If I were not a critical reader and simply followed the suggestions of a critical sacramentary editor without question, then I would not know the possibilities behind alternative translations. What if I interpret an & as -que and not et? What if a nomen sacrum can be attached to another sentence to generate an entirely new meaning?

      All persons who dare to experiment with a text regardless of the language of a text are translators and interpreters. All Catholics should dare to be both.

      1. @Jordan Zarembo – comment #10:
        I mentioned that most people who came to me with concerns regarding the translation ultimately had a quarrel with the Latin, not the translation. A good chunk of the rest of the problems centered on issues such as yours. What you are primarily talking about is ecclesiology. Should liturgical books be uniform? Should there be only one typical edition? Should there be regional missals? These are not so much translation issues as they are ecclesiological issues. It’s a debate that can be had, but it’s really not up to a translator to try to force some ecclesiological change through his work.

        As far as allowing for multiple different translations of a single Latin text, the only way this is possible is if we celebrate Mass in Latin and everyone brings their own hand missal with their favorite translation, maybe even their own. I think I saw this principle extolled on this site recently…something about an Ecumenical Missal.

      2. @Fr. Shawn P. Tunink – comment #14:

        All translators are products of language and linguistic culture. Even a cluster of servers programmed with a translation algorithm would inevitably reflect each programmer’s personality and idiosyncrasies. It’s impossible to create a liturgical book in an intellectually sterile environment. Why would aseptic liturgy even be desirable?

        The task of “translator” or “interpreter” is not always a role which produces a tangible product. This is what I mean when I call all Catholics translators or interpreters: every person at Mass is invited to intellectually consider what is being prayed. As Mass proceeds, prayer is placed into personal context. Prayer is interpreted internally according to a person’s knowledge, subjectivity, emotion, etc. This interpretation may not be written down, printed, or sent out in a tweet, but it is interpretation nevertheless.

        Even at the EF, different interpretations are taking place simultaneously. Are people interpreting the Mass through different means (such as a hand missal) because most do not understand Latin? Yes, but that does not imply that interpretation has ceased, or that the 1962 Missal has an incredible power to trap the human mind and render it incapable of thought.

      3. @Fr. Shawn P. Tunink – comment #14:
        Fr. Tunink,

        Thanks for your many thoughtful contributions here.

        I would answer your questions “Should liturgical books be uniform? Should there be only one typical edition?” etc. rather cautiously and flexibly, since I understand something of that spirit to be the most solemn teaching of the fathers of Vatican II. Articles 37-40 of the liturgy constitution are quite mind-blowing in this regard, and reading them helps clarify that the fathers actually did not have a uniform world-wide Catholic liturgy in mind.

        I’m teaching the Liturgy of the Hours this semester and we’re using Stanislaus Campbell’s great book on how the reform of the office was carried out. They thought for a time of having two or even three offices, one for choral singing, one for private recitation, one for parish use, etc. Then they said that that was not necessary, for the ecumenical council taught that the official liturgy was intended to be adapted and varied to meet the legitimate needs of various groups. They said, for example, that a wide variety of local hymns would be used to supplement or replace the official Latin hymns.

        Some people (I’m not saying you because I don’t know) seem to think that it’s more Catholic if everyone does what’s in the official Latin book. It is fascinating to see that, for the fathers of Vatican II, that view is actually less Catholic or even not Catholic.

        I would think that all of this applies to translations of Latin texts. And it’s why even Liturgiam authenticam explicitly allows for original texts in vernacular languages not based on Latin.

        Ecclesiological issues indeed!

        Blessed Holy Week,

        Fr. Anthony

    4. @Fr. Shawn P. Tunink – comment #5:
      In charity (I hope), I must take the strongest exception to Father Tunink’s characterization of the composition of our English missal as essentially a Latin translation project. Fidelity to the message of salvation and simplicity, nobility, and clarity of expression were requirements laid down for the liturgy by the pope and all the other Catholic bishops of the world in council. Close adherence to the Latin text was a requirement laid down by Jorge Medina. To prefer the latter to the former seems, to me, inexcusable.

  3. Having prayed the Paul VI Mass for nearly 30 years I find the new translation to be less than ideal. The syntax of the text can be awkward and the run-on sentences remind me of St Paul’s writing.
    I studied Latin in the seminary but haven’t used it since. Still I can’t find any mention of “the dewfall” in the Roman text of EP2. I understand the imagery but it’s not faithful to the original Latin.
    While at Mass recently in the Vatican I looked at the worship aid which provided Latin, English, French, Spanish and Italian text and only the Latin and English have Jesus entering “under my roof”. The others talked about receiving him. And none of them use “dewfall” either. Why were other language groups allowed to keep a less than formal translation?
    I find the “for you and for many” translation to be confusing. Pope Benedict acknowledges in his book on Jesus that the “pro multis” represents a figure of speech that in the Semitic original is inclusive.
    Also, I’m confused by the text of the Collect for Corpus Christi: “O God, who in this wonderful Sacrament have left us a memorial of your Passion, grant us…to revere the sacred mysteries of your Body and Blood… Who live and reign with God the Father…” I don’t have the Latin text but as the Collect is normally addressed to the Father, does this mean we are reflecting on the Father’s Passion? Is it his “Body and Blood” we share? And how could he “live and reign with God the Father”? The translation is at least confusing and at worst incorrect.
    Also, relegating the Rite of Blessing and Sprinkling to an appendix gives the impression that it is not as
    desirable as the Penitential Act.
    Hopefully our bishops will study the CARA report and make it an item for discussion at their semi-annual meetings. Eventually it could become an item at ad limina visits.

      1. @Jeff BeBeau – comment #27:
        I sit corrected. I was using the Latin Liturgy Association’s translation on their website, which says, “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy” is the translation of “Haec ergo dona, quaesumus, Spiritus tui rode sanctifier.”
        I guess even Latin scholars can make mistakes in translating. 🙂

    1. @Bruce Janiga – comment #18:
      The Spanish had “entres en mi casa,” which, admittedly, is not “under my roof” but “into my house/home,” which does preserve the original Biblical context in a way that the former English translation did not.

    2. @Bruce Janiga – comment #18:
      The Corpus Christi collect is addressed to God the Son, whose Passion we are reflecting on, whose Body and Blood we share, and who lives and reigns with God the Father. It is rare for a collect to be addressed to the Son (or the Spirit), but they are on occasion.

  4. “What possible expertise regarding Latin translation could your typical parish priest be expected to provide?”

    Replaces “parish priest” with “bishop” in that question and it remains equally valid.

  5. America HAS been “dumbed-down.” This is no way for a world-leader to lead and I hope my international Roman Catholic Church does not follow. Oops. As mature Catholics we must STOP WHINING and educate ourselves. Be responsible. Don’t “lower the bar.” Raise awareness.

  6. >>the fathers actually did not have a uniform world-wide Catholic liturgy in mind.

    If this is true, why is there such consternation about the revival of what is now called the Extraordinary Form, and the proliferation of the Dominican and Ambrosian Rites and the Anglican Use?

    If liturgical variety is an ideal (and it is one of mine), why aren’t those who claim to hold such an ideal more laudatory of the variety that has recently been made available, and the Pope who made it available?

    Why not point to the EF, and the other “traditionalist” oases, as instructive of the value and enrichment of liturgical variety and an inspiration for moving forward in other ways?

    1. @Adam Wood – comment #21:
      Because the EF isn’t a *rite* and VII in SC did not envision two forms of the one rite. As many said above, it is ecclesiology and the EF does not conform to the VII ecclesiology and is not *reformed*. It has nothing to do with diversity or unity or uniformity.

    2. @Adam Wood – comment #21:
      Hi Adam,

      O come on, I think you already know why EF is not an example of the legitimate ritual diversity envisioned by SC. If not, just read all of SC and why the fathers thought the old rite needed revising and would not continue in use in its current state. Or read all the statements of Paul VI – he was very strong on this point. He once said that he wouldn’t allow the 1962 missal because it was an attack on the apostolic authority of the ecumenical council (his words, not mine).

      But please – let’s not get off track and have this argument yet again. We’ve been through all this at least a half dozen times.

      awr

  7. As a (relatively) young priest I would like to suggest that you ask the priests who “like” the new Missal, why they like it. It might have little to do with the new translation. The new missal is better organized, clearer in its rubrics, gives more options for celebration than the old Sacramentary – these are all great improvements. Moreover, preference for a formal style of language is more a judgment of the old translation than a wholehearted embrace of the new. I daresay the younger priests would be just as happy if the more formal register of language in the missal were a clearer, more elegant English. I am one of the 16% who was apprehensive of the missal but now like it – but my liking it has little to do with its cumbersome, latinate English. I find myself altering things all the time, sometimes automatically as I preside, to make its proclamation flow more smoothly, and I am sure I am not alone.

  8. Just for the sake of interest, I found where I made that argument.

    It was in a MusicaSacra forum thread dealing with mixing Latin and English. One of our regulars (“MJO”) works in an Anglican Use context, and is opposed to mixing the two languages.

    I said…..

    ==================
    I always want to agree with MJO about liturgical languages, but I find I have to (at least) quibble somewhat.

    His assertion that mixing Latin and English is “an insult” to both languages doesn’t work well for me, excepting perhaps in the world of Anglican Prayer Book English.

    In the modern (non-AU) vernacular-English Roman Rite, I’m not sure there’s much potential or beauty to insult.

    The issue (in my opinion) is what your use of language(s) says about the liturgical text itself.

    In BCP/BDW (CRANMER) English, the language used makes clear that the English prayers ARE the prayers, though they may be based on Latin originals. In that context, Latin [can become a sort of] encroachment or addition to the Liturgy. (Whether that’s good, bad, or indifferent is another can of Worms.)

    On the other hand, the new translation (rightly, IMO) makes it clear that the Mass is in Latin, and we – in this current celebration – are glossing it with an English translation. In this paradigm, I think it is right and just to allow the gloss to fall away at points where it is not needed.

    (This works, somehow, differently from doing practically the same thing but from a mindset of “replacing the English with some Latin.”)
    ===============================

    Whatever my current opinion on all of that turns out to be, I think this observation is important:
    >>The issue (in my opinion) is what your use of language(s) says about the liturgical text itself.

    That seems to be what all these arguments hinge on, and I often think none of us are willing to dive into arguing/debating the thing that really is driving our disagreements and/or frustrations.

  9. @Fr Ruff (no. #35):

    “Or read all the statements of Paul VI – he was very strong on this point.”

    Is this the statement you were refering to?

    ————-

    The Monday after Pentecost in 1970 His Holiness Pope Paul VI rose bright and early and went to the chapel for Holy Mass. Instead of the red he expected, there were green vestments laid out for him.

    He queried the MC assigned that day, “What on earth are these for? This is the Octave of Pentecost! Where are the red vestments?”

    “Santità,” quoth the MC, “this is now Tempus ‘per annum’. It is green, now. The Octave of Pentecost is abolished.”

    “Green? That cannot be!”, said the Pope, “Who did that?”

    “Holiness, you did.”

    And Paul VI wept.

    1. @Ben Yanke – comment #36:
      Uh, no.

      I’m referring to the numerous times he consistently and emphatically supported the liturgical reforms carried out by Consilium. He was very strong on this point.

      Are you trying to argue he didn’t and wasn’t? I’d advise you give it up, Ben – it ain’t going anywhere.

      They abolished so many octaves in the 1962 missal, and he was following and supporting all those changes, so it’s surprising he would have reacted to the abolishment of Pentecost octave, which is consistent with what was going on, in that way. I’m rather skeptical.

      But even if he did, it doesn’t go very far in changing the overall thrust of his beliefs about liturgical reform.

      awr

    2. @Ben Yanke – comment #36:
      Nice story, Ben. But that was an invention of Fr Z. Dated to the late 1990’s. But with the legs reform2 people keep giving it, it’s bound to someday rival the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals in the annals of ecclesial lore.

  10. Obviously the council did not envision two forms of the Roman Rite. I doubt they envisioned the way the one form of the Roman Rite ended up being celebrated in many places over the course of the decades between the Council and Summorum Populum.

    I find Sacrosantcum Concilium to be one of the most inspiring works of Church writing in the last few centuries. I thought so back when my liturgical preferences ran intensely progressive, and think so now as they have turned somewhat more traditionalist.

    But it isn’t the last word on what is and isn’t authentic to the modern Roman Rite.

    I think that the ideals of liturgical variety, and also serving the individual and diverse spiritual needs of the laity, are well served by access to the older form of the Rite. I think that the existence of the EF, as well as of the Anglican Use, clearly provides de jure precedent for the notion that every celebration of the Roman Rite need not look, feel, or sound the same. Long before my “traditionalist” preferences made me want to actually attend a Traditional Latin Mass, my “liberal” preferences made me very glad that the Church, through Benedict, recognized that different people have different needs which could be addressed through different form of liturgical expression.

    And I still have no earthly idea how the Traditional Latin Mass, in its essence, is contrary to good Catholic ecclesiology. Perhaps some of the accidents of its celebration, and even perhaps its previous hegemonic status (perhaps, perhaps), but within the context of it being available to laity who prefer it, along with a more widespread use of a “modernized” vernacular liturgy?

    I don’t want to delegitimize that point of view and just call it ridiculous or dumb or something. I just truly cannot understand why or how that would be the case.

    1. @Adam Wood – comment #39:
      It’s likely that few human beings have clear sight decades into the future.

      I think fewer would have thought the 1570/1962 Missal would still be in use half a century after SC. Some would credit that as a triumph of curial interests.

      And if we look at the Anglican use by disaffected non-feminists and the TLM by a wide swath of believers from Holocaust-deniers to sincere lovers of tradition, we can also see the alienation of women’s religious communities, and advocates of inculturation around the world.

      What I see is that Catholic conservatives are pampered, and sometimes spoiled brats in the household. The argument in favor of diversity is an empty one. There is only to be permitted a safe diversity, as long as one’s ideology has been proven. This is why MR2 was deep-sixed against the wishes of sixteen bishops conferences in favor of a document that hadn’t even been written yet.

      The fruits of this crime and grave sin is the division we perceive in many places in the Church: bishops bereft of dioceses and the smell of sheep who have driven wedge between believers to further their own comforts and such.

      Adam, I think you need a wider and more liberal view. Your progressive cred isn’t terribly convincing to me. You’re still a good guy and a brother in Christ, to be sure. But you’re too conservative to be a liberal.

    2. @Adam Wood – comment #39:
      Adam, Doesn’t accidens reflect essence? How does the Traditional Latin Mass facilitate the full, active, conscious participation of all the baptized called for by the Church? (I know some traditionalists shudder at these words, but it wasn’t an innovation of VC2)
      Some things that I think are hard to reconcile with our self-understanding as Church:
      Aren’t a number of the priest’s prayers quiet (inaudible)? What is so secret about the Secret?
      The priest SAYS the Gloria while the choir SINGS it. He then sits while waiting for them to finish. What about the people?
      The priest began the Canon quietly while the choir sings the Sanctus. I remember Masses where priests were distributing Communion while the Canon was still being prayed.
      From what I’ve read there were no Old Testament readings at Sunday Mass, which was a one year cycle. The current three-year cycle exposes people to many more passages.
      On EWTN’s website they give a translation and indicate the various parts: P= Priest, D=Deacon, L=Subdeacon/Lector, S=Server, C=Choir. I see no listing for the rest of the People of God.
      I wonder whether people resisted the change INTO Latin in the first place. That to was a move from a less familiar language into the vernacular.
      Based on Jungman’s text it took centuries before the western world fully accepted the Tridentine Rite.
      Plus ca change…

  11. To me, the saddest part is that, it seems – save a few observant and liturgically-minded folks – the parishioners in our large suburban parish don’t even listen to the 3 orations or even the Eucharistic Prayer, save for the words of institution. In talking casually to folks in my ministry as parish liturgist, I’ve been trying to gauge this for the past 2.5 years…seems folks aren’t really even paying attention. And our priests pray them very well (sometimes reciting, sometimes chanting, progressively solemn!)

    This is a problem too!

  12. Todd Flowerday : @Adam Wood – comment #39: It’s likely that few human beings have clear sight decades into the future. I think fewer would have thought the 1570/1962 Missal would still be in use half a century after SC. Some would credit that as a triumph of curial interests. And if we look at the Anglican use by disaffected non-feminists and the TLM by a wide swath of believers from Holocaust-deniers to sincere lovers of tradition, we can also see the alienation of women’s religious communities, and advocates of inculturation around the world. What I see is that Catholic conservatives are pampered, and sometimes spoiled brats in the household. The argument in favor of diversity is an empty one. There is only to be permitted a safe diversity, as long as one’s ideology has been proven. This is why MR2 was deep-sixed against the wishes of sixteen bishops conferences in favor of a document that hadn’t even been written yet. The fruits of this crime and grave sin is the division we perceive in many places in the Church: bishops bereft of dioceses and the smell of sheep who have driven wedge between believers to further their own comforts and such. Adam, I think you need a wider and more liberal view. Your progressive cred isn’t terribly convincing to me. You’re still a good guy and a brother in Christ, to be sure. But you’re too conservative to be a liberal.

    can’t say i’ve seen a better summation than this.. well said.

  13. >How does the TLM facilitate the [FACP]?

    I know of TLM communities where everyone chants the ordinary, and even a few where the entire congregation sings the Gregorian propers. I also know of many mainstream “Ordinary Form” parishes where the people sit passively as the cantor sings whatever s/he feels like

    The form of the rite does not determine the participation level, even within a narrow definition of “participation.”

    >Some things that I think are hard to reconcile with our self-understanding as Church are [a list of things that Catholics have been doing for 5-10 centuries]

    Perhaps you should try harder. Perhaps our self-understanding is lacking. Perhaps the truth of who we are as the Church is deep enough and complicated enough and mysterious enough to hold these contradictions together.

    I DON’T KNOW.

    I don’t have any particular affinity for or specialized knowledge of the pre-concilliar rite. I just have a hard time with the notion that all Catholics everywhere were doing something theologically dubious for a thousand years or more until a handful of experts in the 1960s fixed it.

    >>The argument in favor of diversity is an empty one. There is only to be permitted a safe diversity, as long as one’s ideology has been proven.

    Wow. Just wow.

    >>Adam, I think you need a wider and more liberal view.

    I’m sure that’s true. But I don’t see how telling traddie lay people that their spiritual preferences are degenerate would qualify.

    >>Your progressive cred isn’t terribly convincing to me.

    I write hymn texts invoking feminine language for the divine. I believe women should be ordained. I think communion should be open to non-Catholics. My brother is gay. My mom is an adoptionist. I listen to old J. Glenn Murray lectures on VHS for fun.
    Please let me know which liberal agenda items you consider essential. I’d hate to dissent from the Church the WRONG WAY

    1. Grillo and Reid have already had this discussion at Pray Tell about whether or not the pre-Vatican II Mass is in accord with Vatican II principles. And we’ve had this discussion several times on other threads as well.

      Let’s not do it again – not on this post about the CARA survey on the new Roman MIssal.

      Further comments about pre-Vatican II and Vatican II Mass will be deleted.

      awr

    2. @Adam Wood – comment #49:
      Adam, I would love to have this conversation over an extended meal.

      I had another post written, but out of respect for the host and guideline above, let’s continue off-site. Email me at your leisure.

  14. Jeffrey Pinyan : @Bruce Janiga – comment #18: The Corpus Christi collect is addressed to God the Son, whose Passion we are reflecting on, whose Body and Blood we share, and who lives and reigns with God the Father. It is rare for a collect to be addressed to the Son (or the Spirit), but they are on occasion.

    Jeffrey — The prayer begins with , “O God . . .” It used to begin with, “Lord Jesus Christ . . .”

  15. Thanks, Adam, and without extending the conversation that Anthony has now interrupted, I am glad that you are a member of this forum. I believe that Communion should be offered to all the baptized who believe that Jesus has given us his flesh for food and blood for drink. I believe that non-Catholic Christians participate in worship services that give thanks and praise to God and that we ought to appreciate and value their experience. I have cousins who are gay. And lots of family members who are less than devout. Jesus came that all may know him and experience his mercy and love so they can pass it along.

Leave a Reply

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