What if we just said, 'wait'

[Gabriel]

A couple of comments on SC's comments.
(2) My understanding is that bishops' conferences have asked for additions not modifications to the Order of Mass.Possibly a pedantic point. They are requesting texts which have no equivalent in the Latin text - for example, further model texts for 3rd form of Penitential Rite (Latin Missal has only 1 example). They are not seeking to modify the translation of the Order of Mass which has received recognitio/approval - i.e. as a translation is understood to be 'definitive'. The remainder of the Missal text has not yet received recogntio - though it has been approved by the bishops of England and Wales.

(7) Has the translation been bulldozed through at a faster rate than the one we use now? The third edition of the Missal was published in Latin in 2002. One might even suggest that a starting date of 2001 and the publication of Liturgiam Authenticam. So that's 7-8 years between the work starting and bishops finishing voting on it - and at least a further year before publication and then use. Some might argue with hindsight that if 2nd edition Sacramentary (1982-1999) had not taken so long we would not now be having this conversation.

I would suggest that the example of South Africa is ambivalent - as I understand it the Order of Mass was implemented without any catechesis/formation. Now this at least suggests that catechesis is crucial - even with the best texts in the world.

[keitha]

SC said,

(7) I disagree with John Ainslie and Keith concerning the desirability of waiting. This translation has already been bulldozed through at a faster rate even than the one we use now, of which one of the major criticisms was precisely that it had been produced in a rush and therefore was less good than it could have been. It is abundantly clear that there are major failings in the new text which further consultation and work could help alleviate. Rather than trying to impose it as quickly as possible for political reasons, it seems to me that our people deserve better than this. They deserve substantial catechesis, and proper preparation

.

I'm not sure that we are that far apart. I agree entirely about substantial catechesis and proper preparation. In our Archdiocese we have been looking towards implementing this in a constructive manner with appropriate sessions across the Archdiocese. IMHO there is, however, no real prospect of changing anything now as far as I can see, and so it seems to me that we need to look towards making the best of it rather than looking at what might have been.

[Southern Comfort]

My understanding is that bishops' conferences have asked for additions not modifications to the Order of Mass.Possibly a pedantic point.

I think "consubstantial" in the Creed is still an issue for the US Bishops' Conference. It ought to be an issue for us, given that most people in the pews will have no idea of the theological implications of the word.

Has the translation been bulldozed through at a faster rate than the one we use now? The third edition of the Missal was published in Latin in 2002. One might even suggest that a starting date of 2001 and the publication of Liturgiam Authenticam. So that's 7-8 years between the work starting and bishops finishing voting on it - and at least a further year before publication and then use. Some might argue with hindsight that if 2nd edition Sacramentary (1982-1999) had not taken so long we would not now be having this conversation.

I think we're both on the same side. I was referring to the 1969-1973 period for the production of the first translation (not counting the Bishops' approval process). This time, the actual translation process lasted from 2002 until 2005, perhaps with the exception of the antiphons, which the Congregation has now taken unto its own bosom, regardless of the translation process. That seems to me indicative of the fact that the actual translation process was significantly shorter, and was achieved because the number of translators was very small in comparison with those used in the 1973 version. The number of outside consultants was also miniscule in comparison with those involved in the 1973 and 1997 versions. Since the Congregation insisted that no one who had been previously involved could work on the latest version (though in fact they did not stick to this and at least one person in this country was employed a second time), this meant that those used and consulted this time round were in general rather less expert than those who who had been previously involved but who were now excluded. In other words, when you block out your first line of experts, those left are not in the first rank. Not the best basis on which to start work, I venture to suggest.

[Southern Comfort]

and so it seems to me that we need to look towards making the best of it rather than looking at what might have been.

Precisely. John Ainslie wrote an excellent book a number of years ago entitled "Making the Most of the Missal". He said at the time that if things had gone pear-shaped he would have had to entitle it "Making the Best of the Missal".

[John Ainslie]

Precisely. John Ainslie wrote an excellent book a number of years ago entitled "Making the Most of the Missal". He said at the time that if things had gone pear-shaped he would have had to entitle it "Making the Best of the Missal".

...which could well be the title of Keith Pecklers' recent book, The Genius of the Roman Rite: the Reception and Implementation of the new Missal (Burns & Oates imprint, actually Continuum, ISBN 978-1-4411-0403-8). Curiously, this book and mine are of identical format, both with covers in an un-liturgical, indeed rather protestant, orange - though his might be martyr's red - and both from the same publishing house or its successor. Recommended.

[Gabriel]

I am sure SC and I agree on many things but I think it important to paint as accurate picture as we can.

Now it depends what you mean by 'actual translation process'. The original base translation from Latin to English from which ICEL began its work may have been completed by 2005. But the last Green book - draft text for comment - was received by EW bishops in November 2007. This would seem to me to be a more accurate date even though he translation of both Green and Grey (voting text) was being amended up to last vote - April 2009.

Antiphons - I think you may be under a misapprehension. I understand EW bishops commented on ICEL Green Book translation of the Antiphons in October 2007. They voted on the Grey Book text in April 2009. It has the same status as the rest of the text. In US, because of Congregation's request that all voting be completed by November 2009 the text of the Antiphons was not presented for voting. I would suggest that what was said to them was a little misleading - that the Congregation was taking responsibility for the translation of Antiphons. It would be more accurate to say that the US bishops did not get a chance to vote on Antiphons text but other Conferences did and this is the text that Congregation will consider alongside rest of the Missal.

[Southern Comfort]

Curiously, this book and mine are of identical format, both with covers in an un-liturgical, indeed rather protestant, orange - though his might be martyr's red - and both from the same publishing house or its successor. Recommended.

The UK edition has a Matisse red chasuble design on the front (the original and its "brothers" in the other liturgical colours are worth seeing if you're ever in Nice on the French Riviera). Both this edition and John's book appear red to me, though pretty bright red it has to be said. The US edition from Liturgical Press has a different cover design, with a stylised altar-and-candles-and-book-of-the-gospels graphic by the late Frank Kacmarcik and a colour that shifts from reddy-brown to light ochre, and actually looks (and feels ─ it's laminated rather than varnished) rather nicer. The content of both editions is identical.

I agree with John: well worth the read.

[gwyn]

Southern Comfort wrote

...with a stylised altar-and-candles-and-book-of-the-gospels graphic...

A-ha! How many candles? Is there a central Crucifix too?

[Southern Comfort]

Southern Comfort wrote

...with a stylised altar-and-candles-and-book-of-the-gospels graphic...

A-ha! How many candles? Is there a central Crucifix too?

A short altar, two candles, one at each end, with the Book of the Gospels standing up centrally between them, and no crucifix! Well, you did ask.....

[gwyn]

A short altar, two candles, one at each end, with the Book of the Gospels standing up centrally between them, and no crucifix! Well, you did ask.....

Ah well. Thanks anyway.

[Southern Comfort]

Distinguished liturgical scholar Anscar Chupungco has added his voice to the debate:

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=18980

[Reginald]

One of the comments at the page cited by SC contributes this:

Fr Chupungco was referring to 'the inability to fuse together the two basic concepts of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal, namely sound tradition and legitimate progress.' This is a man who respects both tradition and progress. His is a balanced voice we must listen to. This is what he said: “The long and short of it is that liturgical reform requires serious academic work, not mere romantic attachments to the past that close the eyes to the reality of the present time. The drive for legitimate progress makes us run towards the realisation of Vatican II’s liturgical reform, but we should not run as if we did not carry on our shoulders the weight, both heavy and precious, of sound tradition.” [my emphasis]

Little to disagree with here methinks - and I suspect that BXVI would have few qualms about it either - sounds like reform and continuity to me.

Speaking personally, I don't wish to wait for an alternative to current ICEL and I do regard the new translation as a great improvement, if only in fidelity to the text. I hope to be able to say the same again in the future when the new translation has, in its turn, been superseded by something better. I'm sure I read somewhere that original ICEL was only intended to have a shelf life of 10-15 years, in which case it would seem questionable to wait another 10 years before getting around to the first revision. The 50 years from 1970 to 2020 would give the translation a longer life expectancy than the average for some of the people for whom it is intended.

Leaving aside the thorny matter of syntax, is it not the case that some of those objecting to the new translations simply don't like the ideas expressed in the Latin original? Better then to petition to have them changed in the Latin so that the whole Church may benefit from them - or else to conform oneself to the Liturgy and just get on with it!

[contrabordun]

Is it not the case that some of those objecting to the new translations simply don't like the ideas expressed in the Latin original?

I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence of it. Have you? How many is "some"? 80%? 0.08%?
Is it not the case that some of those pushing for the new translations simply don't like the idea of vernacular liturgy tout court?

[NorthernTenor]

Is it not the case that some of those objecting to the new translations simply don't like the ideas expressed in the Latin original?

I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence of it. Have you? How many is "some"?

Examples aren't hard to find. "And with your spirit" is a more accurate translation of "et cum spirito tuo" than "and also with you". The difference is theologically significant (cf St. John Chrysostom), and it doesn't surprise me that I've seen a laicised priest contend with the more accurate translation.

Is it not the case that some of those pushing for the new translations simply don't like the idea of vernacular liturgy tout court?

Undoubtedly, Contrabordun, but might that not be irrelevant to the matter at hand?

[contrabordun]

Examples aren't hard to find. "And with your spirit" is a more accurate translation of "et cum spirito tuo" than "and also with you".

That is not (necessarily) an example of what Reginald was talking about. In order to demonstrate that it is (rather than being an example of a dispute as to the most appropriate word, a dispute that cannot simply be resolved by noting that "spirit" happens to be spelt almost exactly the same way as "spiritu") you have to show that (a) there is an objection to "spirit" and (b) that the objection is to the "idea expressed in the Latin original" - rather than that the idea can be adequately captured with the English word "you" rather than "spirit". As it happens, I've seen almost no objection to "spirit" (compared for example with pro multis), and none at all based upon disputes with St John Chyrsostom.

The "relevance" is simply that if R is going to make unsubstantiated insinuations about the motives of people on one side of an argument, I don't see why one shouldn't point out that the converse holds equally well.