Will dissent disrupt reception of the new translation?

That is the question asked in the subtitle of an article in the July-August issue of Adoremus Bulletin, “Liturgical Landmark: The New English Missal.” Pray Tell is mentioned and quoted generously – we’re flattered by the attention!

For the record, Pray Tell publishes a wide variety of views on liturgy, including voices critical of the process and results of the recent re-translation of the Roman Missal, but the blog’s editor and editorial committee do not call for disruption of the liturgy or dissent from official directives or official liturgical books.

The article in Adoremus Bulletin quotes approvingly the words of Pope John Paul II, “I wish to offer every encouragement to the Vox Clara Committee in its task of assisting the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disicpline of the Sacraments in ensuring that the texts of the Roman Rite are accurately translated in according with the norms of the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam.” We shall see.

16 comments

  1. “For the record, Pray Tell publishes a wide variety of views on liturgy, including voices critical of the process and results of the recent re-translation of the Roman Missal, but the blog’s editor and editorial committee do not call for disruption of the liturgy or dissent from official directives or official liturgical books.”

    How wide? Do you have any contributors or editorial board members who favor the new translation over the old one? Do you have any contributors or editorial board members who regularly celebrate or weekly attend Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal?

    1. For the record, yes to both. But some people for whatever reason are hesitant to state their views. Personally, I would welcome a stronger articulation of so-called ‘conservative’ positions, especially if it is really well-done.
      awr

      1. “Care to take a guess at a reason or two?”

        They are more comfortable amongst other conservatives. The internet can be a rough place at times, and may people feel more at ease with like-minded folks.

  2. Has dissent disrupted the reception of liturgical initiatives in the past? Of course. Anyone heard of Vatican II’s SC #36 (1963), Musicam Sacram (1967), or Iubilate Deo (1974)?

  3. Some people, it seems, can not handle even an open and even-handed debate!!

    This blog is open and informative. It makes people think, and that’s no bad thing. Keep doing exactly what you’re doing.

    As for dissent, yes probably. That’s what Catholics do!

    A friend of my father once said that something I always quote: “If Protestants object to something their Church is doing or teaching, they break away and form a new Church. If Catholics object to something, they just ignore it!”

  4. Dissent is a great word to describe those who have rejected the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. In the view of the council, the liturgy was broken and they set out to fix it.

    CSL #21: In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These NOT ONLY MAY BUT OUGHT TO BE CHANGED with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

    In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

  5. One can agree with Vatican II and still have a problem with what changes were done and how they were implemented. I would not call this “dissent, ” which is normally used for issues of a doctrinal nature anyway.

  6. Alas, Helen Hull Hitchcock is a sad woman. She has assembled a battery of facts to shoot down her enemies, but as usual has not done her homework properly.

    For example, she is obviously unaware that the Prefect of CDWDS is a Spaniard who speaks no English or, if she does know this, conveniently omits to mention it. The fact that Gus de Noia is an American Dominican is irrelevant. As a recent appointee to the CDW he has not been party to any of the sorry history of the past few years. And she evidently does not know that Tony Ward SM is a difficult character with his own axe to grind, and who is only still in Rome because his own order would rather not give him a home back in England. He is one of the principal architects of the mess in which we find ourselves, and should have been relieved of his post a long time ago. We do not need to be subjected to his personal agenda.

    When a scholar of the standing of Nick King says that the translation is in places “horrid”, all thinking folk need to listen.

    (More)

    1. Moreover, it has become increasingly clear to those who know what has been going on that not only is the new translation politically motivated but that those responsible for it are now out of control and going beyond the bounds of any parameters within which they were previously supposed to be working. It’s rather as if the dogs have been let loose and, finding that no one is supervising them, are running riot. A translation that was at one stage somewhat faithful to the principles of Liturgiam Authenticam is now being progressively reworked by folk who actually do not care about what anyone else thinks. The whole enterprise is thus unmasked as a sham

      The only apparent solution to this is a revolt by episcopal conferences, which seems unlikely at the present time.

      We should pray hard that the Holy Spirit may yet intervene.

  7. “For example, she is obviously unaware that the Prefect of CDWDS is a Spaniard who speaks no English or, if she does know this, conveniently omits to mention it. ”

    What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? It seems as though some critics complain on the one hand about the CDWDS not having anyone who speaks English, and on the other hand that the CDWDS has established a committee of English speaking bishop consultants, Vox Clara. Just like how critics have complained about over literal translation supposedly required by Liturgiam Authenticam (actually LA requires faithful following of the Latin text to the extent consistent with good English usage — the latter part is never mentioned by the critics), and now they complain that the Holy See has apparently made changes that destroy the accuracy that the critics didn’t want in the first place. Personally, I will wait to see the actual language before making an evaluation. Honestly, I think some of the critics have studied at the Saul Alinsky Chicago school of community agitators, since they are shameless in making the most fabulous hypocritical arguments — whatever fits the tactical political goal of the moment.

  8. Mr. Goldsmith asks, “For example, she is obviously unaware that the Prefect of CDWDS is a Spaniard who speaks no English or, if she does know this, conveniently omits to mention it. ”

    What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

    It has everything to do with it, since she is criticizing Fr. King for saying that he and his fellow translators were informed that their work would be reviewed in Rome by people whose first language is not English. Her rationale for the critique? Why, she says, there’s Gus de Noia and Tony Ward.

    This is disingenuous. Gus de Noia wasn’t even around at the time. There’s also Cardinal Llovera and others in the Congregation whose first language is indeed not English. As for Tony Ward, my comments above still stand.

    As far as further changes are concerned, if they are not only moving away from the Latin but are actually mistranslations of it, then Houston, we have a problem. Additionally, you can’t ferociously impose Liturgiam Authenticam as the norm in one breath and then deviate from it in the next. That’s nothing more than inconsistency.

  9. No need to get discouraged…the new translation will clearly be an improvement over what we currently have. The fact is – there are native English speakers in the sacred congregation. That some may not approve of them or whether an individual’s tenure is not as long as someone else is irrelevant to the fact that these men speak English well and that they are actually there.
    Additionally, others at the CDW who may not be native English speakers may still speak the English language. We also have Vox Clara. I would never presume that the prefect of the CDW need’s to speak our language. The Church is bigger than us. Lastly, I bet Mrs. Hitchcock is a very happy person who is looking forward to a faithful translation of the RM after so many years wandering in the desert of paraphrase & coloquialism.

  10. Don’t forget that ++Raymond Burke is also at the CDW now.

    Don’t forget that he doesn’t work there, which I think is the point of what was said above. The number of staffers at CDW is actually quite small, and a number of them do not in fact speak English, not even as a second language. They pull in English-speaking consultants when they need them, but even that is not sufficient for them to process all the work that is asked of them in a timely and accurate fashion.

Leave a Reply

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