Statement by the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship

Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, outgoing chair of the BCDW, issued this statement today:

There has been some discussion recently about a report surfaced through some segments of the Catholic Press regarding the present state of the text of the Roman Missal, Third Edition.  A number of facts will hopefully clarify the situation and, in so doing, give us the calm needed to welcome and implement the new text.

First, it is helpful to keep in mind the genesis of the final text that is now being prepared for publication. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) prepared for the English-speaking Conferences of Bishops preliminary drafts (“green books”) of the 12 sections of the Roman Missal. After incorporating the feedback and responses of the individual Conferences of Bishops and the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, ICEL then prepared the final drafts (“gray books”). These were approved by canonical vote by each of the member Conferences. In approving the gray books, each conference also had the opportunity to make further suggestions to the Congregation, as was done in particular by our Conference. We submitted many amendments to the texts. The Congregation, working with the Vox Clara Committee, carefully listened to what the bishops said. The Congregation incorporated many of the suggestions of the various Conferences (including our own), combined with their own review and changes, and put forth the final text.  The Congregation followed the principles of Liturgiam Authenticam faithfully but not slavishly.

This is the final text now being readied for publication. This process includes a final review and copy edit which, given the size of the text, uncovers some minor questions of consistency, typographical errors, and layout. Those questions are being addressed by the Congregation for Divine Worship. This review has not dealt with the translation itself.  The critique that has circulated has necessarily failed to take into account the final version of the text, which incorporates some corrections issued by the Congregation since the transmittal of the full text to the English-speaking Conferences of Bishops in August 2010.

To sum up, there is a final text.  It has received a recognitio. As the work of editing and assembling nears completion, there is assurance that the published text will be available in more than ample time for implementation in Advent 2011. It is good to note also that the catechetical preparation for implementation is already underway and has proceeded with much enthusiasm and wide acceptance by both clergy and laity. It is clear at this point in time that there is an attitude of openness and readiness to receive the new text. Let us pray in this time of transition and change that the Roman Missal, Third Edition, will enable all to understand more deeply the mysteries we celebrate.

Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli
Chairman
November 18, 2010

59 comments

  1. Just minor matters, nothing to worry about, — iceberg? don’t be silly — what’s that noise? oh, just the creaking of the deckchairs.

  2. “The Congregation, working with the Vox Clara Committee, carefully listened to what the bishops said.”

    One can only wish that he had said:

    “The Congregation, working with the Vox Clara Commitee, carefully listened to what some bishops said, and rightly ignored what other tin-eared bishops said.”

    Alas . . .

  3. “A number of facts will hopefully clarify the situation . . . ”

    Can facts be full of hope? I’m sure he meant: “I am (One is) hopeful that a number of facts will clarify the situation.”

    Good grief. And yet, I still believe in the glories of the English language to instruct, inculcate, and inspire, even the lowly ‘average Catholic.’ But they shan’t be found in the new missal. What might have been will never be.

  4. Do you think typographical and layout changes will fix something like this?

    Here’s the first Collect (of two choices) after the first reading at the Easter Vigil:

    Omnípotens sempitérne Deus,
    qui es in ómnium óperum tuórum dispensatióne mirábilis,
    intéllegant redémpti tui,
    non fuísse excelléntius, quod inítio factus est mundus,
    quam quod in fine saeculórum Pascha nostrum immolátus est Christus. Qui vivit et regnat in saecula saeculórum.

    2008:
    Almighty everlasting God,
    who are marvelous in ordering all your works,
    let those you have redeemed
    understand that still more wonderful
    than the world’s creation in the beginning
    is that, at the end of the ages,
    Christ our Paschal Lamb* has been sacrificed.
    Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.

    2010
    Almighty ever-living God,
    who are wonderful in the ordering of all your works,
    may those you have redeemed understand
    that there exists nothing more marvelous
    than the world’s creation in the beginning
    except that at the end of the ages,
    Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.
    Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.

    “EXCEPT THAT AT THE END OF THE AGES”??????
    No!
    This HAS to be a joke!
    Who in the world came up with THIS?
    Promoveatur ut amoveatur: PLEASE!!!!!!
    And just put back in place 2008.

    [*”Passover” changed to “Paschal Lamb” by the Commission, January 2009, in light of comments on the Gray Book received from the Congregation and from the Conferences and for the sake of consistency.]

    1. What’s the big problem? The 2008 doesn’t have it right either. The Latin doesn’t say that the sacrifice of Christ is more excellent than the creation of the earth; it says that the creation of the earth is not more excellent than the sacrifice of Christ.

      Other than roughly the same degree of variance from the Latin that the 2008 exhibits, I can’t imagine what there could be in the 2010 to warrant six consecutive question marks or exclamation points.

      1. I didn’t trust my Latin enough to make Mark’s point about the non excellentius when I first read XR’s post. The problem is that the Latin is simply bad and decadent; a good translation for liturgical use needs to correct it. In this particular case, if memory serves me well, 1973 is rather fine.

      2. Finally an answer to Vox Clara’s clunky prayers. This calls for lots of !!!!! Way to go Mark!!!!!!!!!!!! Except that except that still sounds funny in a prayer. Get it??????? LOL

    2. How about this PERFECTLY EXCELLENT VERSION from the ‘rejected-by-Vatican’ 1998 Sacramentary:

      Almighty and eternal God,
      how wonderful is the work of your creation,
      how wisely you establish all things in order!
      Enlighten the people you have saved,
      that we may perceive
      the greater wonder of your new creation,
      brought forth in the fullness of time,
      when Christ our Passover was sacrificed,
      he who lives and reigns for ever and ever.

      BETWEEN YOU AND I, to quote the good Monsignor Moroney, this translation would be, in the words of 2010, PERFECTLY MARVELOUS to use EXCEPT THAT it wasn’t doesn’t reflect the superior expertise of the illiterates on Vox Clara!

  5. The problem is that the Latin prayer is over-elaborate. Why should we pray to understand that Christ’s sacrifice at the end of the ages is more excellent than the creation of the world at the beginning? And the chronology is of a mythical order, not necessarily meaningful in a contemporary context.

    1. I have no problem with a mythical order — it goes rather nicely with the logic of ritual — but it does seem to me that the Latin here is convoluted enough that a bit more freedom for the translator to work from idea-to-idea rather than from word-to-word would have been marvelous. . . um, I mean wonderful. . .um, no, maybe I did mean “marvelous” after all. . .

  6. These are my favorites quotes from this statement:

    “much enthusiasm and wide acceptance by both clergy and laity.”
    and
    “an attitude of openness and readiness to receive the new text.”

    Give me a break. This is downright laughable.

    1. Absolutely. Either he’s living in cloud-cuckoo land or he is being totally disingenuous. My friends among US clergy around the country tell me that they feel they are being ‘sold’ something, and something which has precious little to do with pastoral need at this time in the Church’s history.

      Serratelli’s mathematics also makes no sense. He talks about the USCCB submitting “many amendments”, but in fact the total was only about 200. Even allowing for a similar number of suggestions from other conferences (and in fact some offered few or none), the Bishop still has 8,000 or 9,000 modifications to explain away. And typographical errors and inconsistencies are not what we are talking about here but wholesale changes to the text.

      He claims that LA was followed faithfully but not slavishly. The excerpts of the Received Text leaked so far, plus others that have been seen by some posting on this blog, show quite conclusively that his claim cannot be substantiated. If LA allowed some of the ridiculous liberties that we have seen, there can be no good reason for not approving the 1998 text when it was submitted.

      The good Bishop seems more than somewhat confused about precisely when and in what quantity corrections by the Congregation have been introduced, when in fact it is known that rewriting continues even as we debate this.

      If he had wanted to calm the waters, he should have issued an honest statement, setting out in detail the process that has been followed. As it is, I do not think anyone is prepared to believe his spin on the present situation.

      As far as ample time for implementation by Advent 2011 is concerned, once again he is not living in the real world. Some altar missal publishers have already missed deadlines for ordering paper, to give just one example, and he clearly has no understanding of the amount of editorial work that will be involved in producing the other materials (e.g. missalettes) that will be needed.

    2. Perhaps he’s been studying the PR of the assorted totalitarian regimes of recent decades. The Soviet Union, Iran, China, Baghdad Bob’s Iraq…

      Or, maybe he’s just been smoking something strange. Whatever it is, he’s most emphatically NOT describing the situation where I live!

    3. Bishop Serratelli obviously did not attend the all-day Roman Missal workshop for priests in my city. A workshop which I am sure was wonderful, except that I’m pretty sure a number of priests left after the morning portion…That, to me, does not look like “enthusiasm” or “an attitude of readiness” but maybe that’s just how pastors in my city express their enthusiasm for the new Missal translation.

    4. I think we risk much when we put too much emphasis on anecdotal evidence. Perhaps our impressions are colored by the circles in which we operate. Think of someone who watches little more than FOX news or who listens only to NPR.

  7. The respective communist parties of North Korea & China will be able to recognise the spin and obfuscation apprent in Seratelli’s piece.

    The amazing thing is that these guys have no compunction about telling straight out lies.

    And they are bishops of the Catholic Church. God help us all.

  8. For what its worth, I do not believe that Bishop Serratelli wrote the letter, as I doubt he agrees with its content. More likely, the phone rang, a hastily arranged meeting occurred where it was presented to him by the nuncio and was told to sign it, and he did.

    1. Janet,

      I’m afraid it’s not really worth very much. He puts his name to it, it’s his. End of story. Most presidents don’t write their own speeches, either, but they, not the speechwriter, get the credit or blame.

      Lesson of the day: Be careful what you sign. You are accountable for it.

  9. Besides…..has anyone done the math yet? Lets presume that every parish buys at least one defective Missal (cha-ching), THEN, the same parishes buy the interim “corrected” edition next year (cha-ching) and THEN, the FINAL, “we finally corrected all the gafs” edition, the year following (cha-ching again). SOMEONE is going to make a fortune publishing the new Mess.

    By the time its all done, eBay will be awash with 1st and 2nd revisions for $5.00 BUY-IT-NOWs…. Since someone tells us that they are perfect, just as you see them, they should sell GREAT in the metropolitan Worcester area, where a certain Msgr is compiling a library of his favorite work.

    Now the big question: If everyone shuts up and this whole Mass Mess just goes away, can Tony Ward and Jim Moroney FINALLY be named bishops??

  10. People, people, what is all the fuss about? Technology will come to the rescue. We’ll simply project the texts on a big screen above the altar. Our church (see picture here) has plenty of space for giant LCD screens – we’ll just cover up the mosaics or the stained-glass window.

    Churches not so blessed with old art that can be covered up can install in-pew screens, like the ones on the backs of airline seats.

    With this technology in every parish, CDWDS can tackle ‘minor questions of consistency, typographical errors, and layout’ on a daily basis, if they so desire. We’ll download before every Mass.

    Easy.

    1. +JMJ+

      With this technology in every parish, CDWDS can tackle ‘minor questions of consistency, typographical errors, and layout’ on a daily basis, if they so desire.

      When I learned that the Propers are those prayers of the Mass which change day-to-day, I didn’t think they meant that! 😉

  11. In response to Janet (#16), whether the Bishop wrote the letter or not, I am not convinced that he disagrees with the letter. I really do think that these men are either totally clueless with what is going on in the real world of liturgists, clergy, musicians and yes, the faithful; or, they have no courage to truly speak honestly about the situation that awaits them and us all when this missal is introduced to the English-speaking church. And they certainly are clueless as to what the publishers of the actual missal themselves are facing in trying to prepare these for publication. No idea whatsoever.

    Almost everywhere I go, the majority of the clergy are angry. Amongst musicians – “conservative and liberal” they are anxious and worried. Amongst the ordinary, every day faithful – they are asking “why is this happening”? In all three of these groups the overall feeling is, as some of stated here, that this is an attempt to push a “sell-job” on the people, and many others feel that is a distraction to stop the many ongoing other issues that are causing angst for the church.

    I believe this is a real crisis of leadership and there seems no credible honesty in facing it, let alone coming up with a pastoral plan to deal with it.

    1. David is right. The credibility shortage is reaching crisis proportions. Serratelli could have had a wonderful career writing for Pravda.

    2. When J.C.Cantrell spoke to our music ministry about this he would only describe it as “the white elephant in the room’ but he said that if we are to be responsible servants,there will always be discomfort, and discomfort is necessary for growth.

    3. But David, would you not agree that the reason why people are angry is because we are going to change what we’ve always taken for granted for 40 plus years???? What about the several ceturies prior when people took for granted that the Mass was celebrated in Latin???? Interestingly, at J.C. Cantrell’s worshop with our music ministry, he read a letter from Tim Manion on the word Yahweh, which we can no longer sing. Tim pointed out that not being able to sing the word doesn’t bother the composers as much as it does the people who grew attached to the word by hearing the word. So he had no reservations about changing the word in You Are Near. The same thing I suspect will happen with the new Mass translation. It will eventually grow on us.
      Musicians and clergy are feaful of the unknown and when all things are said and done, it won’t be as bad as we think it will be . Wait to be catechised before passing judgement.

  12. Perhaps folks here can finally relax a bit. Father Z is now on the case:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/the-new-roman-missal-leaked-online-for-your-perusal/

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/thoughts-about-correcting-the-corrected-translation/

    Snippets:

    Having read through “Areas of Difficulties” I can say that I agree in large part with the author’s concerns. Where Liturgiam authenticam = LA and Ratio translationis = RT, here are the areas of concern identified by the writer: [the thirteen now well-known areas]

    WDTPRS will start drill into texts. That’s what we do around here.

    All during the history of WDTPRS I continually asked people to pray to those involved and even to write letters expressing their hopes for the new translation. I renew that plea now.

    And “eyes in the skies” will surely take note(s).

    1. He’s finally back from vacation. Sorry CHE but Pray Tell carried the ball on this one. The Xaveir guy on here did the stuff FR Z usually does. Your buddys like the last one to check in on it. It’s on it’s way to the printers practically according to that bishop. Plus hasn’t he been complaining about this stuff for years. If the eyes in the skies were that impressed he would have been invited to work on the thing a long time ago. I guess better late than never. But FR Anthony here is the one made them wake up upstairs. Sorry.

      1. Sorry CHE but Pray Tell carried the ball on this one.

        Nothing to be sorry about, Jeremy. I agree with you completely. I didn’t really expect Father Z’s jumping on the case at this late date to cause rampant relaxation, certainly not in these quarters. (Tongue in cheek apparently didn’t come through too well.)

  13. If +Serratelli really believes this nonsense…that this new edition will be greeted with much enthusiasm and acceptance…it just goes to reinforce the fact that he and the others do not live in the same world most of us inhabit. It is just plain sad…very sad. Thank goodness for the Mike Ryans of the world!!

    1. By the bishops planes of existence new have occupied been…

      Dang, that one _almost_ makes a legal, if really strange, English sentence. Especially poetic English. I was trying to hard not to do that. Oh, well. Can you tell I’m not an English major?

      Bp S sure hasn’t been visiting my neighborhood. So far the only person whose remarks I’ve seen or heard, who has spoken in favor of what’s coming at us, is the archdiocesan director of worship. And he has to be, or at least appear to be, enthusiastic about it.

    1. Since when was ‘saying things the way they are’ a requirement for a Catholic bishop?

      In fact, there’s plenty of evidence that being good at ‘not saying things the way they are’ is a guarantee that a Catholic bishop will rise and rise and rise . . . .

      1. It’s never been a requirement. And that rising is no doubt merely due to basic physics – hot air rises.

  14. “This process includes a final review and copy edit which, given the size of the text, uncovers some minor questions of consistency, typographical errors, and layout. Those questions are being addressed by the Congregation for Divine Worship. ”

    Dear Bishop Serratelli , I”m trying very hard to accept this missal in the spirit you ask of us, but I can’t close my eyes to the fact that we were told something similar to what you say in the quote above when the first English missal was foisted upon us. Sorry to say, it was replete with typos.

    I’ll believe everything you say, once I’ve examined this missal in detail.

  15. Newsflash: Father Z has begun his analysis of 2008 vs 2010 in next week’s issue of The Wanderer with his analysis of the collect for the First Sunday of Advent. I suspect his continuing analyses will be seen as even more convincing than anything yet here at PrayTell–by those in the Vatican who actually read his stuff seriously (and, importantly, see his as a voice from the right side). I’ll leave it to others to tell whether he starts with a hint that his initial leaning may be in the direction of considering some possibility of conspiracy. Or whether, more innocently, this is simply the work of some one who’s not a native speaker of English. In any event, I suspect this issue has now acquired its most powerful ally yet.

    1. How is it a NEWSFLASH when this diocese-less blogging priest has ‘started’ doing stuff which has already been done on here months ago by the good Professor Rindfleisch and others?

    2. The importance of Father Z’s commentary in his Wanderer column—which is read by high-level Vatican officials who are still oblivious to the internet—is that this concern can no longer be dismissed as confined to PrayTell and NCR types whose opinions carry no weight in Rome. It is important for them to know that reservations about the current CDW role are not confined to dissidents who are assumed to be opposed to the reform of the reform, so their complaints would ordinarily be taken rather more as compliments than as criticisms. When Father Z states plainly–and backs it up with convincing analysis–than 2008 is better than 2010–people will take notice who pay no attention to stuff (however solid) appearing in venues like this one.

      1. which is read by high-level Vatican officials who are still oblivious to the internet

        Wishful thinking, I fear. And other well-known bloggers are convinced that they are of great influence in the corridors of power. If only they could hear what the Bishops (and Roman officials) say about them….

      2. Fr Z is actually not as well read in the Vatican as he’d like. He basically begs them to pay attention to him, and rather baldly at that.

  16. It isn’t and suspect that the analysis is being done by others. There are some excellent editorials being written these days about the state of news, 24/7 news cycles generated by the likes of large opinion stations – MNBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. and how this distorts Americans from spending time looking for facts; spending time doing their own analysis based on facts (not opinion or their favorite opinionator). In many ways folks not only think but act on the spur of the moment with little to no effort on asking good questions, doing their own homework, taking time to test and analyze. Catholic news organizations have begun to reflect society and media outlets. One could make a case that the Fr. Z[‘s of this world merely reflect the “secularization” of society per B16; that EWTN, Wanderer, NCRegister all reflect their own polarized views. And to be balanced – guess you could say the same about America, Commonweal, NCR, US Catholic. Is there really an effort to seek facts; balanced viewpoint, both sides of an issue?

  17. Paul Inwood :
    which is read by high-level Vatican officials who are still oblivious to the internet
    Wishful thinking, I fear. And other well-known bloggers are convinced that they are of great influence in the corridors of power. If only they could hear what the Bishops (and Roman officials) say about them….

    If this is true that the Vatican is “oblivious to the Internet,” then why do they have a website, vatican.va, why are all the church documents available on the Internet. Not true.

    1. Tim, you’re too too defensive about the Vatican. I predict you’ll end up disappointed some day down the road.

      Pretty much every blog from right to left, from Whispers in the Loggia to WDTPRS to Commonweal, has decried how out of it the Vatican is on modern technology. The day they launched their new office for evangelization, the new leader of it admitted he had no internet connection in his office.

      awr

  18. To sum up, there is a final text. It has received a recognitio. As the work of editing and assembling nears completion, there is assurance that the published text will be available in more than ample time for implementation in Advent 2011. It is good to note also that the catechetical preparation for implementation is already underway and has proceeded with much enthusiasm and wide acceptance by both clergy and laity. It is clear at this point in time that there is an attitude of openness and readiness to receive the new text. Let us pray in this time of transition and change that the Roman Missal, Third Edition, will enable all to understand more deeply the mysteries we celebrate.

    Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli
    Pay particular to the first line,and this makes no mention that the Vatican has to give a a final final approval. The final approval was given when it was given in recognitio. That is wishful thinking by those here who do not like the translation!!!!

    1. Tim, facts are facts – no matter how much you feel you must defend authority. The facts contradict this statement, I’m sorry to say.

      We have an online leak of the “Received Text,” which is the final text (as of April 28) with recognitio from Rome. Note that the text of the doxology (“Through him, and with him…”) has been changed since then by Rome – just look at the USCCB site. Rome only gives recognitio to the final text once – but then the text keeps changing. That is the fact.

      Or if you don’t believe me, let’s make a deal. Your side will be that the Received Text is the final text because Rome gave it recognitio. My side will be that that Rome has had to make many changes the Received Text before it appears in our missal. Here’s the wager: For each change from the Received Text to the final text in the missal, you give me a dollar. If there are no changes (I’ll overlook the doxology as a bonus to you), I will give you a thousand dollars.

      Deal? I’m very confident entering into this bet.

      awr

    2. +JMJ+

      Tim, the issue is that the “final text” clearly isn’t in its final form yet. It’s still being “edit[ed] and assembl[ed],” since that work has not yet reached completion. We’re assured the published text will be available with ample time, but we haven’t seen that assurance in writing; we have seen a text receive a recognitio and then be changed after the fact (the 2008 Order of Mass).

      1. I doubt that Jeffrey. CDWS wouldn’t have done that. And CDWS already approved the 2008 order of the Mass when they gave in recognitio status in March. Yes, Jeffrey, it took CDWS TWO YEARS to approve the 2008 translation.
        And USCCB would not have the text on their website with the date of implementation if it weren’t final.

      2. +JMJ+

        What do you doubt specifically, Tim?

        In 2008, there was an Order of Mass given a recognitio. This text was available on the USCCB for nearly two years. I have a copy that I saved and printed. Here is the report on it from the August 2008 USCCB newsletter from the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship:

        “On June 23, 2008, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments confirmed the text of the Order of Mass I. […] The recognitio has been granted at this time so that formational materials can be prepared for both clergy and the faithful, and that musical settings of the revised texts of the acclamations and other texts meant to be sung can be composed.”

        This 2008 Order of Mass has been altered since then.

        You act as though the USCCB saying something on its web site makes it an infallible pronouncement from the mouth of God Himself. It’s very possible for them to say something that’s not final.

      3. +JMJ+

        Furthermore, Tim, the USCCB did have texts on their web site that turned out not to be final: the 2008 texts. They were thought to be final until a few months ago when some of them were replaced.

        Example: the absolution after the Penitential Rite. In 2008, we had on the USCCB site this text which had received recognitio: “May almighty God have mercy on us and, with our sins forgiven, lead us to eternal life.” Now that text reads: “May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.”

        It changed. Do you understand that?

  19. I find Bp Serratelli as quoted by Tim English deliciously suave. I can see why he rose so high in his firm.

    “To sum up, there is a final text. It has received a recognitio.?

    The word “final” here is bland double speak. It is as if a student were to say, “I have finished my essay and will bring it tomorrow” (when in fact he is going to stay up all night feverishly revising it).

    “As the work of editing and assembling nears completion, there is assurance that the published text will be available in more than ample time for implementation in Advent 2011.”

    I don’t know what to admire most here. The final text is still changing but this is just the normal “editing and assembling” — what a lovely euphemism for 10000 changes, including grammatical errors that now have to be corrected again. But “there is assurance” surely wins the prize. The assurance sounds religious (My soul, there is a Country) and even romantic (Es gibt ein Wiedersehen), but is so understated as to revocable without a blush.

    ” It is good to note also that the catechetical preparation for implementation is already underway and has proceeded with much enthusiasm and wide acceptance by both clergy and laity.” Ah, the statesman can sit back in his armchair now and smoke a Havana — “It is good to note…” And why am I reminded of the flowers and smiles that greeted the US soldiers in Iraq?

    ” It is clear at this point in time that there is an attitude of openness and readiness to receive the new text.”

    There is, indeed, there is — though Heaven knows precisely where this free-floating ‘attitude’ is; “at this point in time” is a crisis-indicator.

    The sudden shift to pious langauge in the last sentence again sounds indicative of crisis: ” Let us pray in this time of transition and change that the Roman Missal, Third Edition, will enable all to understand more deeply the mysteries we celebrate.”

  20. In response to Tim (#32):

    “But David, would you not agree that the reason why people are angry is because we are going to change what we’ve always taken for granted for 40 plus years????”

    ANSWER: No I do not agree… I think this is an insult to many clergy, liturgists, musicians and yes, folks in the pews. Yes, some people do not like change, simply because it is change. But this is more than basic change for many people, and the anxiety that I sense is not that simple.

    “What about the several ceturies prior when people took for granted that the Mass was celebrated in Latin???? Interestingly, at J.C. Cantrell’s worshop with our music ministry, he read a letter from Tim Manion on the word Yahweh, which we can no longer sing. Tim pointed out that not being able to sing the word doesn’t bother the composers as much as it does the people who grew attached to the word by hearing the word. So he had no reservations about changing the word in You Are Near.”

    ANSWER: First of all, Dan Schutte wrote “You Are Near,” not Tim. Secondly, whether folks became attached to the word “Yahweh” does not change the fact that this needed to happen for sake of sensivity to our Jewish brothers and sisters who never utter this name themselves. And being a composer who has talked about this with many other composers, it does bother many of us. I am not even sure what this has to do with the issue that I raised earlier, but whatever.

    “The same thing I suspect will happen with the new Mass translation. It will eventually grow on us. Musicians and clergy are feaful of the unknown and when all things are said and done, it won’t be as bad as we think it will be . Wait to be catechised before passing judgement.”

    ANSWER: I think this is terribly naive. This is much more than fear of the unknown. Yes, most will “get used to it” – but that does not mean it does carry the angst that I and others are concerned about. There things that I presently have…

  21. (con’t)
    “gotten used to” – but they still cause pain.

    This is serious stuff.. and to reduce it to simply say, “well, folks just don’t like change” is really nothing being terribly concerned with the pastoral care and prayer of our people.

    This is more than just “changing the words” at Mass, or the issue of how people will accept or not accept this new translation. This is another manifestation of a serious crisis of leadership…

Leave a Reply

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