NCR: New beef about revisions in the revised Roman Missal

NCR just ran this story by Jerry Filteau. You might know some of the people in the article. But who’s this Xavier Rindfleisch guy?


  1. Interesting. In this NCR article, for the first time that I have seen, Fr. Richard B. Hilgartner, associate director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat of Divine Worship, posits that the myriad changes may have actually come from other English speaking bishops conferences!

  2. As I have made note of many times here, this point is finally enunciated by somebody who can’t be written off as a “Trad” or “Blind supporter of Rome”…

    The Holy See has ultimate authority over liturgical texts and it’s “not unheard of” for the worship congregation to make changes before giving approval to a text, he said. “Liturgiam Authenticam leaves to the congregation the right to actually impose a text,” as well as to edit texts approved by bishops’ conferences, he said, citing Paragraph 80 of the document.

    And so for all of those who keep insisting that the recent goings-on are “unprecedented” or “unforseen” or whatever, obviously somebody foresaw them in 2001 in par.104 of LA (The NCR got this citation wrong, referring to par.80. It is LA104 that speaks about imposing translations and the ultimate authority of the Holy See over translations.)….whether for good or for bad, this provision was put in there to allow exactly what we’re seeing. A small paragraph that went un-noticed suddenly becomes very important.

    Now, may I bring up the issue of Par.108? 🙂

    1. We’ve had some interesting discussions about the legal status of LA. In spite of what it says, Church law currently leaves it to Bishops’ Conferences to decide which approved text it used in their territories. LA didn’t change that because since it was approved in general form, is doesn’t have the authority to change existing law.

      1. Jeffery B…

        I don’t doubt your reference, but where exactly does “Church Law” extend that power to the Bishop’s conferences to the exclusion of the Holy See’s generally acknowledged authority over “all aspects of the Church’s liturgy”? In other words, if such an authority to create translations was extended to Bishop’s Conferences, it would have been so extended by the Holy See. But my question is this: Was the creation of translations given to the Bishop’s Conferences as a “power” and “authority”, or was the creation of translations given to the Bishop’s Conferences as a responsibility? There is a substantial difference.

        I would really like to see the specific point of law that grants to Bishop’s conferences the power to over-ride a translation created and promulgated by the Holy See. Is there such a thing?

  3. Don’t we already have an example of the Bishops Conferences right? Germany renounced their Order of Funerals…

  4. Haha, I finally got it! Trautman –> trout –> beef –> “Beefman” –> Rindfleish. Very clever; I appreciate the symbolism of trout –> beef as representing the elimination of traditional practices like Friday abstinence.

    1. You seem to have cracked the code, Mr. Thompson! Good one!

      Didn’t Card. George refer to Bp Beefman’s…er, Trautman’s tactics as akin to guerrilla warfare at last November’s meeting? Guess it was more like some covert CIA dis-information campaign.

    2. +JMJ+

      Mark and John, I really hope you’re not trying to discredit the report on the differences between 2008 and 2010 by pretending it’s the work of a bishop you don’t like.

      Also, please note that XR is supportive of the 2008 text, while Bp. Trautman is not.

      There are serious deficiencies introduced into the 2010 text, and they warrant explanation, or at the very least, correction. Making light of this matter is unhelpful.

      1. FWIW, I’m 80% kidding around, 20% thinking it might well be Bishop Trautman. That said, given the bathos ladled out over these somewhat lousy changes (that they are “mind boggling,” “cataclysmic,” etc.), I think a bit of making light is fully warranted. Anyone whose mind is truly boggled by the changes being discussed here — leaving out some quaesumuses and adding some “we pray”s, “overcome” in place of “overflowing,” etc. — would have an immediate simultaneous coronary, stroke, and spontaneous combustion upon looking into the 1973 ICEL missal.

      2. Mark – depends on what standard you’re using. Are you judging the 1973 translation by the standards presented only in 2001 with Liturgiam authenticam? That doesn’t seem fair – so 1973 wouldn’t be reason for coronary or stroke or spontaneous combustion after all. I would judge 1973 by its faithfulness to the Vatican instruction then in force, Comme le prevoit – and it does quite well by that standard.


  5. See the report over at NCR? So mistranslations of Latin, out and out incorrect English and breaking Vatican rules on redoing the missal is ok with you as long as it’s not the 1973 ICEL. Wow since when were low standards the Catholic way of doing the liturgy.

    1. Well you see, the 73 translation has caused a breakdown in the liturgy and is why so many have left the Church. It’s just that awful.

      1. What do you think of the 2010 Sean if it’s as full of DIFFERENT mistakes is that an improvement or should the people in charge of producing 2010 follow the rules the Pope put down? Seems like they didn’t. How’s that any better than 1973.

      2. the 73 translation has caused a breakdown in the liturgy and is why so many have left the Church. It’s just that awful.

        I never thought I would see such a simplistic and unfounded comment on this blog. The liturgy has not broken down, and the reasons why so many have left the Church are to be found elsewhere. It’s perfectly possible to argue that the ’73 translation is the reason why so many have stayed in the Church, ‘cos they sure as heck aren’t going to with 2010.

      3. I would also add to Paul’s point that Christian communities (Orthodox, Protestant) who did not undergo significant liturgical reforms in the 1960s and 1970s have experienced a decline in attendance in analogous countries which is no smaller than our own. Ditto, the Jews.

        So, putting Vatican II and declining Mass attendance together and thinking post hoc, ergo proctor hoc is clearly a bit of a misfire, simple though it may be.

  6. The “leaving out some quaesumuses and adding some “we pray”s, “overcome” in place of “overflowing,” etc.” does seem to make a mockery of the years of hearing the Vatican make such a big deal out of the need for their approval so as to guarantee accurate and faithful translations.

    If this is what passes for accuracy and faithfulness . . .

  7. Yes, it is acutely ironic that after lecturing the whole world on supposed lapses from accuracy and faithfulness, they themselves indulge in an orgy of inaccuracy and arbitrariness.

Leave a Reply

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