An Overreach Concerning the New Missal Translation?

An Overreach Concerning the New Missal Translation?
Jeffrey P. Regan

A few days ago I participated in a Lessons and Carols service in the greater Washington area. While sponsored by a Roman Catholic institution, the service itself was not promoted as Roman Catholic per se, and attracted participants from multiple Christian traditions.

The service was beautiful and spiritually moving; however, something occurred at its beginning that gave me significant pause and raised a question about how far the new Missal translation should reach outside the celebration of the Eucharist.

The presider, a Carmelite priest, began the service by proclaiming, “The Lord be with you.” The congregation responded, “And also with you.” There was a moment of silence, followed by a wave of laughter that swept across the entire worship space for almost thirty full seconds.

Then, the presider said, “Let’s try that again. The Lord be with you.” The laughter immediately died down and the congregation responded, “And with your spirit.”

The presider’s insistence to “try that again” surprised me. First, the greeting itself was not in the program, so presumably the presider took the liberty of offering one, which I find appropriate. However, was his insistence on a greeting that drew upon the new Missal translation appropriate?

The service was not a celebration of the Eucharist or any of the sacraments. The priest fulfilled the role of a prayer service presider – a role for which he qualified by reason of his baptism, not his ordination. Under this scenario, I find it highly questionable for any presider (clergy or lay) to insist upon a particular response recently enshrined in the new Missal translation. It’s neither required nor needed in this context. The presider greeted the congregation, and the congregation responded in kind. Move on.

What happened at the service was relatively small potatoes; yet, it makes me wonder how far the new Missal translation might venture out beyond the celebration of the Eucharist and affect the language of other prayer services and paraliturgies. By and large, these celebrations have enjoyed a level of linguistic freedom in which the unique cultural and spiritual needs of a praying assembly can be captured or expressed through the rich use of metaphors and other poetic devices. I hope this freedom endures for generations to come.

Jeffrey P. Regan received a M.A. in Theology from the Saint John’s School of Theology·Seminary in 2010. He currently serves as a healthcare advocate at a major medical specialty association in greater Washington, D.C. Jeff and his wife, Natalie, reside in Alexandria, Virginia.

Other Voices

Please leave a reply.

Comments

26 responses to “An Overreach Concerning the New Missal Translation?”

  1. Jack Rakosky

    As a lay person who has held a lot of “lessons and carols services” sharing my music collection in my home, I would avoid any possibility of confusion with an official liturgical service. All Catholics have the right to not be confused about that whether in church or in our homes.

    In lessons and carol services, I might include a CD track which gives a dialog to a service from a tradition that I am emphasizing but that is clearly to give people an ambience of the Roman, Anglican, or Byzantine service(s) that I am drawing upon.

    I always title whatever service I have put together with a title that both tells people about the tradition upon which I am drawing and also that it is not an official service, e.g. A Service of Lessons and Carols for the Great Blessing of Waters” not “Byzantine Vespers for the Theophany of our Lord”.

    In the service booklets, I have two symbols, a “circle” says we say it together, a “diamond” says the next person going round the “diamond” says that part, e.g. each new invocation to a litany is said by someone different. There is no other allocation of roles, nor sense of anyone being anything other than a leader of the moment.

    My “services” are always done in a “faith sharing mode” where we share our thoughts and prayers about the music and lessons between them. I do have a leadership or “impresario” role since I say a few words to introduce each hymn or lesson and help facilitate the discussion between. This is very different from being “the leader” or even temporary “prayer leader” of a community. Why not faith sharing in church if it is not a liturgical service?

    In this case I think simply saying “The Lord be with you” creates the possibility of mistaking the service for an official liturgy. I think even having a presider creates that possibility.

    Have a “choir” lead, each member taking turns reading, etc. Then people would get the idea that it is based on baptism not orders.

    Reply
  2. Alan Lukas

    Working in a community that celebrates the Liturgy of the Hours daily, we have begun “and with your spirit” to the closing dialogue of Morning and Evening Prayer when the presider is an ordained minister. It just makes sense. However, when we fumbled at the beginning of the process with both Eucharist and the Hours, we didn’t restart. Now…explain to me the recent RC facination with Lessons and Carols! …Anglican wanna-be’s?

    Reply
    1. Jack Rakosky

      As someone that has a life long experience with the Divine Office in various forms: EF; Monastic Office, LOH, Byzantine Office, Anglican, my judgment is the LOH was mainly revised to fit the needs of priests who pray it privately and has not worked out well in parishes.

      Now that we have DivineOffice.org and other sites that provide the office over the internet without the need of books, ribbons, etc, I think LOH via the internet provides a good office for individuals, families, and small groups. DivineOffice.org is good at modeling how it might be done in those groups, and (on weekends) how a small group of cantors might do it for a parish.

      Nevertheless, I think both Byzantine and Anglican traditions provide a better model of a “cathedral” office for parish use. I often go to the local Orthodox parish for their office (in fact I am headed there this evening for Vespers).

      I think the Lessons and Carols Service provides an even better model than the Byzantine and fulfills the suggestion in SC 35:4) Bible services should be encouraged, especially on the vigils of the more solemn feasts, on some weekdays in Advent and Lent, and on Sundays and feast days. They are particularly to be commended in places where no priest is available.

      They should be presented as devotional services modeled on the liturgy even if they might hopefully influence some future more cathedral form of the LOH.

      I also think that Lessons and Carols could be well integrated with parish bible study, especially the Little Rock model that has personal daily study, weekly group discussion, and a weekly large group event. I would replace the video or lecture of the Little Rock Model with a Lessons and Carols Service. My experience of the Little Rock Model is that the large group event is its weakest aspect.

      Reply
      1. Christopher Douglas

        To you about para-liturgies and to Mr. Lukas about Anglican-wanna-be’s:

        The Nine Lessons and Carols originated at Truro Cathedral and was made famous by King’s College, both CofE. Little-known fact: it was inspired by the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic office of Matins, wherein on important feasts there were always three “nocturnes” (containing three lessons, each followed by a Responsory). (Think Tenebrae). Hence the Nine Lessons; the number wasn’t chosen arbitrarily. The original, inspired Anglican contribution was to substitute Carols for the Responsories, use hieratic English, and have a hierarchy or laymen and clergy read the Authorized Version, beginning with a choirboy and continuing up to the officiant reading the “Last Gospel”.

  3. John Drake

    I agree that this was overreaching. However, there will inevitably be spillover of the new dialog responses as they become ingrained. Witness how hardly anyone, praying the Our Father in a group outside of Mass, concludes with “Amen “

    Reply
  4. Bill deHaas

    Interesting – unlike other comments, this is sad because it creates disruption in common worship events and it creates more separation rather than seeing the liturgy and rituals as steps to reconciling & welcoming.

    Reply
  5. Jeffrey Herbert

    On the other hand… before the new translation, the people would have given the same response that they ordinarily would at Mass. Why is it now somehow unseemly to do the same? What is perhaps encouraging about this anecdote is the sense of humor of the attendees…no “booing” or obnoxious outbursts…just laughter followed by the expected response. They slipped up and they knew it, and apparently very willingly corrected it.

    This is, of course, a different question altogether from whether it’s appropriate to borrow parts of liturgical rituals and insert them in para-liturgical or plainly non-liturgical settings. My own two cents would be that it’s a bad idea to use Mass texts outside of the Mass, as much so as it is a bad idea to use non-Mass texts in the Mass. Same thing….

    Reply
    1. Mary Burke

      You say they slipped up. You’ve begged the question and beggared belief.

      Reply
  6. J. Thomas

    I find the scenario to be rather indicative of the pomposity and colonialism of the roman church. In an interdenominational gathering why would any presider presume to correct the assembly? There is an ecumenical, ecclesial, and liturgical logic to common texts among Christians. Sadly, this is another example of how such logic has been abandoned.

    Reply
  7. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    If there was a program for the service and the greeting was not included, I don’t think it should have been added by the presider. And in a setting like that there should not have been a correction of the assembly present when the presider did add it especially in this transitional period.
    But with that said, the other day at daily Mass I decided to expand how I greet the congregation at the beginning of Mass. I’ve been using exclusively “The Lord be with you.” I used form B which I don’t have memorized and thus had to use the worship aid: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” which is very nice, but no one responded with either response except maybe two people out of 60 or so. So I said, let’s do it again. I guess I should have come out before the daily Mass and told the congregation not be thrown when I use greeting “B.”

    Reply
  8. Bill deHaas

    Geez – Fr. Allan – you just used that form B and you don’t have it memorized. It has been around for years and we wonder why the VII liturgical reform was never tried??

    BTW – this is the Congregation of the Mission and Daughrers of Charity typical greeting with any formal correspondence – it imitates Vincent dePaul.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      That’s why the three Daughters of Charity at daily Mass that day were the only ones responding! I should also disclose I don’t normally use anything but “The Lord be with you” as I find the Trinitarian greetings redundant after just having said “In the name of the Father…”

      Reply
      1. Bill deHaas

        But, to use your frequent refrain, they are so scriptural and we do want to be more scriptural in our translation, correct?

      2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Bill, Wow! Finally you’re getting it! 🙂

  9. Carl Dierschow

    Holy cow – the Mass might somehow affect the rest of our lives! What a shock!

    Reply
  10. Joshua Vas

    I would not have corrected it, but I don’t think it is unhelpful for people to get familiar with one translation instead of juggling several about (probably a better argument if Catholics constituted the majority of the congregation). I also don’t think “and with your spirit” is all that unecumenical as it (or a variant) is found in some other worship traditions as well . I’ve been to Episcopalian and PCA services where it was used, and if I recall correctly, whichever ELCA places still stick with the ancient Red Book also use it.

    Reply
    1. Joe O'Leary

      It’s no more important than variants such as “Lord, hear our prayer” and “Lord, graciously hear us” at the bidding prayers aka prayers of the faithful.

      Reply
  11. Ray Marshall

    Mr. Regan

    It really hurt you, didn’t it?

    Have you ever though about how much millions of Catholics were hurt in the late 60s when much of what they had been taught in their lives had been invalidated by the switch to the vernacular and the changes in the liturgy and the beautiful art and sculpture of their parishes were destroyed by iconoclasts?

    Offer your current experiences up as your purgatory.

    And please pray for understanding as to what is happening now.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Mr. Marshall,

      Why are you so bitter? And so condescending?
      And still living off hurts now over a half century old?

      awr

      Reply
      1. Mitch Powers

        Condescending? When I offered my own opinions on how I viewed the translations I believe your words referred to my “pet tranlation theories”. I believe Mr. Marshall explained why he was/is bitter, removal of Latin, the removal of statues and sculpture. The contradiction or removal of things learned during one’s lifetime. Pretty spelled out to me. What more would you be looking for?

      2. Sean Parker

        So, is the solution for the church to offer both a modern liturgy and a traditional liturgy? If people are still harboring resentment from what happened in the 1960s and 70s, then it is reasonable to believe that in 2051, people will be harboring resentment from this change.

        I will say that this change has enlightened me on one thing. I had no idea that anyone was other than accepting or happy with the liturgy of the mass as it existed up to recently. But, then again, I didn’t experience the changeover to the vernacular or the missal from 1973, because I wasn’t born when Latin was used, and I was very young when the previous missal was implemented.

        I still sense much resentment, feelings of vengeance, and downright anger expressed here. Jeffrey Pinyan pointed out that this blogsite is a microcosm of the church in general, and he’s right. We have clergy, lay people educated in theology and liturgy, and a few of us regular people from the pews. If these feelings are being expressed here, they are being felt everywhere. This is just a place where there happens to be a way to publicly express them.

        Regardless of peoples’ views, let’s ALL try to keep the anger in check, especially at this time of year. We’re all going to go try and celebrate about “peace and goodwill” over the next few weeks, and it doesn’t feel like there’s much of either of those two things this season.

  12. Julia Smucker

    I must say I find a somewhat vindictive satisfaction in saying “And also with you,” with gusto, before the Gospel reading at the liturgy of the hours.

    Reply
    1. Joe O'Leary

      Others are finding that satisfaction during the Mass itself!

      Reply
  13. Nicholas Mitchell

    To Ray Marshall – hear, hear!
    The changes 40-50 years ago were far more violent and sweeping than those we see now and, certainly in my part of the world, there was little or no understanding or accommodation offered to those who were deeply distressed and hurt by the revolution – and revolution it was. It was “put up and shut up” – people bullied, patronised and browbeaten. And changes well beyond those mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium or the GIRM of the 1970 Missal enforced as mandatory. And all manner of iconoclasm and trampling on what people had grown up with and held dear.
    Perhaps the anti-new translation people should form of Society of Pope Paul VI?
    In all seriousness, I don’t believe those attached to older liturgical forms (whether “Tridentine” or 1973) should be completely deprived of them…sensitivity is needed, lest the mistakes of the 1960’s and beyond are repeated….

    Reply
  14. Joe O'Leary

    I think offering the faithful 1973 is not enough; we need to continue on the trajectory of improving on 1973 that had already borne good fruit in 1998 (violently suppressed); we also need far more liberty for creative and inculturated worship.

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      So long as its a consensus (no mere majority) of the people in the pews at large, not the clergy or the parochial staff and committees, that vets what is meritorious about what is proposed…. Good intentions are woefully insufficient. The nature of clericalism, from the right or the left, is that clergy attract people who think sympathetically (even if they have differing personalities, which can be confused with genuine diversity), and alienate or simply lose those who do not. Echo chambers know no ideological boundary, and clergy would prefer to rely on their own judgment (perhaps ratified by like-thinking staffers and committee members) rather than do the very hard, years-long work of helping the community itself discern a consensus.

      Reply

Posted

in

, ,

by

Other Voices

Tags:

Discover more from Home

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

Continue reading