Here it is: “Bar is set low in acceptance of year-old English missal.”
Ruff on the New Missal at NCR
Comments
33 responses to “Ruff on the New Missal at NCR”
-
“And let it be said, there are certainly some good things in the new translation worth retaining.” I’d be interested in reading the author’s list of what these good things are.
-
Thanks Anthony – a sober analysis.
Quite apart from the profane and disedifying process that led to the new translation, the absense of wide-spread enthusiasm among clergy and laity is the most telling sign that something is seriously wrong.
-
Graham, just how does one measure wide-spread enthusiasm in matters liturgical?
-
@Daniel McKernan – comment #3:
If enthusiasm were widespread, we’d be hearing about it from many of the clergy we know personally. This isn’t that difficult to know.
The only hard data I know of about priests’ reactions is from Bishop Brom – not from the whole country, but from a specific region. He found strong rejection of the translation among priests.
awr-
@Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #4:
Anecdotal evidence is often self-validting.
-
-
-
I don’t think that Bishop Brom is demonstrating much leadership here. It seems more that he was seeking to be divisive and obstructionist — to use clerical discontent about the fait accompli of the MR3 to stir the pot and obstruct the retranslation of the Breviary.
Were the discussion at the USCCB surrounding one of the other liturgical texts to be translated, I would be more apt to give him the benefit of the doubt (since the other texts actually DO affect the worship done by lay Catholics). Although there are a some lay Catholics who do pray the Liturgy of the Hours, any change would mostly affect priests and religious.
From the USCCB’s report on Bishop Brom’s intervention:
Some of the new translations make the missal not sacramental, “but aggravating. It should not be the basis for other liturgical publications,” Bishop Brom said.
However, Bishop Brom either does not understand (or chooses to ignore) that the Missal is in fact already the basis of the parts which have been changed (particularly, when considering the breviary, this would be the revised Collects). It is not a matter of opinion or debate on whether they “should” be used. They are used.
The old texts only accidentally remain insofar as the new texts may not be readily available. However, even with this, I have seen more than a few Baptismal, Marriage, and Funeral books with amended texts already pasted into them.
-
@Clarence Goodwright – comment #5:
I don’t think a bishop like Bishop Brom sets out to be divisive and obstructionist! I’d take him at his word: he listened to priests, and he heard what they had to say.
awr-
@Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #6:
I will step back a bit… I did speak too strongly to accuse Bishop Brom of being ‘obstructionist’ as though that is a general tendency of his. I don’t know enough to say that, and I will admit my description of him as such was unfair.
However, by his statements (even while rooted in the reactions of priests he has heard) Bishop Brom did in fact advocate halting further translations, as though the Missal continues to be a matter of debate.
Considering that his criteria for continuing was to wait “until work is done on improving the missal” and that the problems he saw involved “complicated and awkward phrasing” and “strange vocabulary,” the only way to “improve the missal” would be to completely redo the translation (something I can’t see happening until we are talking about the MR4). That sounds like he was advocating an obstruction to any further work.
-
-
-
I think this aspect of your article provides more interesting analysis:
There is some heartfelt and enthusiastic support for the new missal. It is limited to a small band of the church, as anyone who spends much time in the Catholic blogosphere can attest. These are the traditionalist conservatives most upset with the direction of liturgical renewal since the Second Vatican Council and most anxious to “reform the reform.” From this quarter, and only from there, comes the claim that the new texts are beautiful and poetic. One wonders whether this small group isn’t increasingly the bishops’ base of support, whether it’s the missal or any other church controversy.
You confuse neoconservatives for traditionalist conservatives.
Traditionalists may find the new translation much better than the 1973 translation (and have been quick to note that the MR3 translation is much more similar to the English in their EF hand Missals). However, any improvement on the Mass of Paul VI is an “improvement” on something that they would say never should have existed in the first place. In the end, most of them would still see it as problematic, along with the rest of +Bugnini’s project (even the MR1962 has shades of this, but that is a story for another day). Traditionalists don’t care to “reform the reform” – they want to repair the rupture (though the hurt caused by the rupture might mean waiting another generation to do so).
It is the neoconservatives who are the happiest with the new translation — they are the ones genuinely happy with the new translation, because they see it as fixing many of the mistakes of ’73 translation (and have none of the traditionalists’ reservations about the Mass of Paul VI). I think most would admit that the MR3 translation isn’t perfect, but they aren’t about to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Where I find this most interesting is how this might play out with an upcoming revised Liturgy of the Hours. Of all the liturgical books, I think this is the one where the reaction will be a widespread “meh.” Only those who are obligated to pray the LotH are required to change — this makes it a very different dynamic than the Missal or other liturgical texts. Since the number of Catholics using the current Liturgy of the Hours is small compared to the number who go to Mass regularly, those affected by a revision will be comparatively small — those actually using a revision I believe will be comparatively even smaller:
Clergy and Religious who do not wish to use the revised LotH might (illicitly) continue to use the old one. I would hope most would accept the revision, but how this will compare to the number of priests who have begrudgingly accepted the new Missal has yet to be seen. Of course, some Religious will (licitly) continue to use the approved office of their own communities.
Laity who do not wish to use the revised LotH I would imagine will continue to use the old one, at least when praying privately — they are praying it out of devotion as opposed to by obligation, and there really is no mechanism to force them to change. This is no different than the traditionalist laity who have chosen to use earlier versions of the Breviary (a small number of the laity who pray the old Breviary prefer the one prior to the Pius X 1910 reforms). Of course, most laity don’t pray the Hours at all, and so to them it is a moot point.
Traditionalists (both laity and clergy) who have an attachment to the EF will continue to use the 1960 Breviary. This includes a not-insignificant number of young priests who may not have the latitude to use the 1962 Missal regularly.
This leaves us to the Neoconservatives, who will split two ways: a minority will continue to use the Latin OF Breviarium Romanum as they have been accustomed to do; the rest will use the new translation of the Liturgy of the Hours.
Additionally, seminaries will adopt the new translation out of necessity whether or not the faculty is in favor of the new translation, just as they have already done with the Missal.
I think these numbers will end up being more interestnig than the ones concerning the Missal.
-
@Clarence Goodwright – comment #9:
I suspect a revision of the Liturgy of the Hours may really put the cat among the pigeons, because it is prayed several times daily, mostly on a one-month cycle, and is textually much more familiar to its users than the Missal is. The translation is largely of high quality, especially the Grail Psalter (the RSV/NAB canticles are more awkward). We were largely spared doggerel translations of the Latin hymns. The Intercessions at Lauds and Vespers, IMO, are often masterly: large-hearted, compassionate, thoughtful, well-expressed texts oriented to sincere prayer rather than to literal fidelity to the sometimes convoluted Latin originals (some of the festive texts are more clumsy and didactic, perhaps the work of a different sub-committee). It goes without saying that it is not beyond improvement, but almost 40 years of daily use has imprinted the current LOTH deeply in its users’ minds.Pope Benedict has said: “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us, too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.” There are already conservative voices newly criticising Pius XII’s liturgical reforms and clamouring for use of the 1956 or 1948 Roman Missal. Summorum Pontificum may have opened an endless process of unhappy antiquarianism and liturgical disunity. If and when the LOTH translation is replaced, I suspect we will see even more clearly what a can of worms B16 has opened.
-
-
Neo conservatives and traditionalist conservatives – just love it. You have almost written a paper here – why don’t you submit to Fr. Swift and see what he thinks?
How is what Bishop Brom conveyed at the USCCB any different from the initial post about a survey (that some have questioned in terms of methodology, questions, etc.).
Would place more trust in the feedback this Bishop has received over some general survey.
Finally, would suggest that Bishop Brom is suggesting that the LOH translation be paused until things can be worked out in terms of LA, RT which seem to continue to be revised. You seem to have missed this interpretation and direction.
-
Hello Clarence,
You confuse neoconservatives for traditionalist conservatives.
I think that if Fr. Ruff merely dropped the word “traditionalist” from that sentence, it would work just fine.
There are conservatives and there are traditionalists, and there’s a major difference between them, as you say. It does seem to me that Fr. Ruff is talking about conservatives , not those who mostly or exclusively attend EF masses.
-
To be polite, the new translation reminds me of something on the bottom of my shoe that might warrant curious examination and perhaps a sniff test.
Even with decent preparation, better than average (I believe) preaching and quite adequate presiding the responses of the assembly are anemic after one year of the VC2010, in fact poor compared to 18 months ago.
The presidential prayers today (First Sunday of Advent) were laughable. “Profit us?” Give me a break.
BTW, did anyone look carefully at the new preface for Thanksgiving? It was a howler.
-
@Fr. Jim Blue – comment #13:
FR JB –
You said that you were ‘to be quite polite”… um… when???
Did you mean in this comment???… um… where?Um… uh… is there supposed to be something amiss with ‘Profit us?’
Hmmm….. What could it possibly be?????!!!-
@M. Jackson Osborn – comment #20:
MJO, I don’t believe that this kind of sneering innuendo furthers the debate at all.
-
@Paul Inwood – comment #21:
Your exhortations would have more weight behind them if they were applied equally across the board.
I mean, comments like [T]he new translation reminds me of something on the bottom of my shoe that might warrant curious examination and perhaps a sniff test (Fr Jim Blue, #15) don’t exactly “further the debate” either, do they?
-
@Paul Inwood – comment #21:
PI –
And, you believe, then, that ‘something on the bottom of my shoe’ does?????
Um, er, whhat are your criteria?
-
-
Everyone here knows how these texts came to be, and that they have been in use for a full year. I have seen and heard them in use but not accompanied by any special enthusiasm – though I would say the same of other texts we have used in the past. It’s just something that we do together as church, and thankfully the mystery transcends what we hear and say. Also, thankfully, no one will ever eliminate or re-translate our Amen. Some elements of this are untouchable.
Paul, I think you just gave vox clara an idea. Give them a few years and they will tell us that Amen has been replaced with something else. I wouldn’t put it past them.
I worship almost always at our Lady of Walsingham, which is my parish (of which I was the founding choirmaster) to the tune of the inimitable liturgical language of my childhood and youth. When I visit our other, pure Roman rite parishes, my reaction is ‘well, well, they tried (at last) but didn’t quite make it’, but at least they tried and the result, warts and all, is a great, great (great) leap forward from where they were a year ago. I feel almost at home, but once in a while forget and say the Anglican Use words. This, I think, is a normal part of coming to own something new, and, far from heaping contempt upon it, I render to it laudations for at least going in the right direction. You see, I know and understand what they wanted, but, too bad they swallow and ask us how to do it.
I personally was very surprised to learn of Bishop Brom’s intervention. He is not a man generally thought to be in the frontline of the ranks of the progressive — quite the reverse as a rule. And yet this man has clearly understood what it means to be a true pastor, to his priests and well as to his people, and he manifested his own pain at their suffering. My estimation of him went up more than a few notches.
Bishop Brom either does not understand (or chooses to ignore) that the Missal is in fact already the basis of the parts which have been changed (particularly, when considering the breviary, this would be the revised Collects). It is not a matter of opinion or debate on whether they “should” be used. They are used. The old texts only accidentally remain insofar as the new texts may not be readily available. However, even with this, I have seen more than a few Baptismal, Marriage, and Funeral books with amended texts already pasted into them.
I use the new translations of the nuptial blessings, since I think they are, on the whole, an improvement (partly because the underlying Latin text has changed and been enriched with an epiclesis upon the couple).
But I don’t think it is necessarily the case that the Missal translation of the collects have to be used for the LOH. In Britain the current LOH translation of the collects differ from the previous Missal translation — and strike me as superior.
-
@Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #18:
Certainly, I think you are right. For the time being, we have an option to choose between old or new Translations for Breviary collects, the Nuptial Blessing, the Baptismal Promises, and the like.
However, as the other books ARE translated and official editions are printed, we will lose that latitude to choose the one we deem superior, just as we lack the right of that decision concerning the Missal.
@Fr Ruff:
Playing to the galleries, I see.
Isn’t it a little easy to write an article critical of the new translation, with all the usual NCRep shibboleths crow-barred in there (“power”, “traditionalist conservatives” – boo-hiss! – “secretive central authority”, etc., etc. ad nauseam), to a self-selecting audience, the vast majority of which don’t like the new translation?
I suppose you’re happy with the quality of the comments your NCRep article has engendered on their site? And did you have to rely on your “anecdotal reports” because the CARA study appeared after your article went to press? Perhaps you ought to tell the NCRep about the CARA study on the new translation: it’s not on their website anywhere even though it’s been out for a few days now… I can’t think why that would be… (!)
It’s all just a tad predictable, I’m afraid, and more than a little boring. Much like the recent video of Mr Mickens trotting out the same old lines mingled with his “Vatican implosion” wishful thinking.
I think my favourite part in your article is the following: It is not unreasonable to hope that voices like Brom’s will grow louder, with a revision of not just the missal but also the misguided translation principles that made it possible. OK, it’s not unreasonable, but it is wholly unrealistic. We all know that MR3 and LA aren’t going anywhere any time soon, and voices like Bishop Brom’s are not going to get any louder. Quite the opposite, in fact, as 74-year-old Bishop Brom will be submitting his retirement very soon.
Fr Ruff, a man with your credentials can surely do a lot better than this article!
-
@Matthew Hazell – comment #23:
Dear Matthew,
For someone who allegedly finds my thoughts boring, you sure are expending a lot of energy reading all the comments at NCR and writing this comment here! We don’t really care what you find boring or predictable: engage the content at issue. If you have an argument with substance, please make it. Most of what you wrote is dismissive labelling, name-calling, and scolding.
Pax,
awr-
@Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #24:
Thought you presented a fair and balanced viewpoint. Why even Allan agreed (sort of):http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2012/12/finally-and-astonishingly-common-sense.html
Money quotes:
– FINALLY AND ASTONISHINGLY, COMMON SENSE AND ORTHODOXY AT PRAYTELL!
(and you didn’t even mention *sub-deacons* in the article)
-
@Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #24:
For someone who allegedly finds my thoughts boring, you sure are expending a lot of energy reading all the comments at NCR and writing this comment here!
If you think I read all the comments at NCRep, then I’m sorry to disappoint you; one only needs to read a few comments to get the gist of the majority opinion over there. Indeed, the reaction of NCRep readers to certain topics is… what’s the word?… predictable.
We don’t really care what you find boring or predictable: engage the content at issue.
As well as stating my boredom with the constant whinging, I thought I had engaged with at least some of the content. I notice you haven’t responded to the following points:
1) Playing to the galleries is easy, but how does it benefit anyone?
2) “Anecdotal” evidence is cited, but you make no mention of the recent CARA study: why?
3) Are you happy with the general standard of comments at NCRep below your article? What fruit has your article cultivated in their lives (see point 1)?Most of what you wrote is dismissive labelling, name-calling, and scolding.
At the very least, I don’t think I called anyone any names; consequently, it would be nice if you accused me of things I had actually done. Thanks!
-
@Matthew Hazell – comment #26:
Matthew,1. Don’t tell me what’s easy and what isn’t. You haven’t done what I have and I doubt you have any idea how easy or difficult it is. You’re in no place to dismiss the witness of another as “easy.”
2. The CARA study wasn’t out yet when I wrote. Now we know that 30% say they don’t like it, 70% do – not exactly resounding acceptance. We don’t have data yet on priests’ responses.
3. I hesitate to engage you on the NRC comments since you admit you haven’t read them – you’ve only discussed them – but in general I can say that I’m not happy with the level of comments at NCR or any other site – Pray Tell included!awr
-
@Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #28:
Don’t tell me what’s easy and what isn’t. You haven’t done what I have and I doubt you have any idea how easy or difficult it is. You’re in no place to dismiss the witness of another as “easy.”
Well, I suppose it’s possible to deny that it’s easy to write an article critical of the new translation for an audience that is largely very sympathetic to that point of view. That still strikes me as pretty easy, though. It would be like me writing an article that waxed lyrical about Latin in the Mass for Fr Z’s blog – i.e. preaching to the choir, tickling their ears.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that it was easy for you to (e.g.) write your open letter in America to the US Bishops back in February 2011. But your NCRep article is not that 2011 letter. It perhaps would have been more profitable to not indulge in the “traditionalist conservative” slurs (even if it is de rigueur for an NCRep article), concentrate more on what the “good things in the new translation worth retaining” are, and also actually articulate what you see as the “constructive contribution” critics can make.
The CARA study wasn’t out yet when I wrote.
Fair enough – I had assumed that might be the case, thanks for the clarification. (Still no mention of the CARA study on the NCRep website, but perhaps they were too busy working on their most recent editorial to notice it…)
I hesitate to engage you on the NRC comments since you admit you haven’t read them…
Well, I didn’t say that. What I did say is that I haven’t read all of them. I’ve read a few of them – the ones with the most ‘thumbs-up’, probably the first 8-10 along with their threaded responses. Not particularly edifying, but sadly in line with what one might expect from the more vocal NCRep readers.
-
@Matthew Hazell – comment #31:
Matthew,
I’m reacting pretty negatively to this whole line of enquiry of yours, whether it was too “easy” for me to write the NCR article.
First, I didn’t write it only for NCR subscribers – it’s open to the whole world. Including eg. people like you. (And I’m spending more time responding to you than to all the commenters at NCR put together.)
Second, what I find so objectionable is that you don’t respond to the issues I raise (especially about structures of authority) and give reasons for why you hold otherwise, but rather you go at me and my lack of moral virtue. It really is a moral argument I’m hearing from you – whether it’s easy or not to write, whether there is a lack of moral courage. What does that have to do with anything? I suppose everything Fr. Z writes for his audience at WDTPRS is “easy” because they all agree with him (to generalize recklessly, as you do about NCR). So? Same with the columnists for National Review, or Nat Cath Register, or Salon, or other journals – I suppose it’s easy for all of them to write for a specific readership. So? The question is whether their arguments have merit, whether one agrees with the substance of their argument or not. Since when do we go by whether it was morally difficult or not for them to express their views? Since when do we dismiss an argument because it is presented to an allegedly sympathetic audience?
Finally, I have many roles as a monk, priest, undergrad teacher, member of seminary and grad school faculty, chaplain to women’s community, chaplain to jail in diocese, director of national youth choir, blog editor, member of board of NPM and CAL, and so forth. You are in no position to tell me what is easy for me to do. I’m not complaining: I wrote what I wrote, and after much consultation I agreed to its publication, and I stand by my decision. As to how easy that is for me to do, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Pax,
awr
-
@Daniel McKernan – comment #28:
Is the call to priesthood genuinely a call from God, or is that just a marketting slogan? Is God all-powerful, or is that just a marketting slogan as well? Has God ever divinely revealed that HE will never call any of those ghastly females to be his priests? If so, why has the Vatican never published details of this revelation?
So, if we accept that God is conscious, all-powerful and inscrutable, and if we also accept that God calls an individual to the priesthood without sending a corresponding telegram to the local bishop, it is absurd to conclude that he cannot call women to the priesthood. In fact, there are many cases where women have spent a lifetime discerning a call in this very direction only to find that the Church isn’t interested. The exact same call, and the exact same discernment for a man, of course, is entirely valid.
If the Pope wishes to stifle debate, I am forced to conclude that he fears where that debate might lead. Fear is not born in Heaven, nor in the will of God.
-
@Paul Robertson – comment #29:
(hmm, the comment I’m replying to seems to have wandered off into the blogosphere somewhere…)Anyway… is it permissable for a person with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome to be ordained? Such a person has an XY chromosome pair and testicles. What are the definitive criteria that the church uses to define “male” when it comes to ordination?
Anthony, I found your NCR piece to be very powerful, in a pastoral way that seeks to engage the essence of what it means to be the church.
As a Lutheran, I did not worship regularly with the former translation, nor do I do so now with the new translation. I grieve, however, for “the abandonment of liturgical texts formerly held in common with our Protestant brothers and sisters” as you put it in your piece.
From where I sit, the measure by which a liturgy — an enacted event, not a written document — is judged is by asking questions like these:
1. Does the assembly become a community by participating in this rite?
2. How are members of the assembly changed by the end of the rite?
3. How is God experienced by the worshipers as the rite unfolds?
But these are not the questions being asked in most places with regard to the new translation.
In the eucharistic liturgy of the church, what people are longing for is not a lecture about God, an abstract discussion of how God acts, or a recitation of God’s actions somewhere else with some other group of people. What worshipers crave — both in the pews and in the chancel — is an experience of God’s presence, now, in this place.
That’s what they crave; what they are finding is something else, as Bishop Brum discovered in his discussions with the priests of his diocese.
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.