What if we just said, 'wait'

[docmattc]

Please keep to the topic. Unnecessary and unhelpful comments will be deleted

[presbyter]

And the topic is:

...........we earnestly implore the bishops of the English-speaking world to undertake a pilot program by which the new translations -- after a careful program of catechesis -- can be introduced into some carefully selected parishes and communities throughout the English-speaking world for a period of one (liturgical) year, after which they can be objectively evaluated...........

I'm all for evaluation but the phrase "carefully selected parishes" is a bit of a stumbling block towards me signing at the moment. Who selects? The Bishop? On what grounds should selection be made?

A South African commentator on the website provides an insight as to how not to introduce the Missal:

The new translation was introduced in my country without any preparation of the people, and precious little help was offered to priests. Several bishops simply told their clergy to get on with it, "to read it over a few times and get used to it", and that it was no use complaining since Rome had already spoken. Priests and religious who have written articles questioning the translation, the document on which it is based, or its means of implementation have been marginalised by those at the bishops' conference who oversee matters liturgical. The vast majority of English-speaking laity dislike the new prayers. Some now attend Mass less often, or drive to a parish where the priest will not use the new Order of Mass. A few have left for the Anglican Church.

[Southern Comfort]

I'm all for evaluation but the phrase "carefully selected parishes" is a bit of a stumbling block towards me signing at the moment. Who selects? The Bishop? On what grounds should selection be made?

Yes, a Bishop has the power to designate one or more parishes as places of particular liturgical experiment if he so wishes, and I have been in situations where this has happened (though the Bishop need not, and in these cases did not, make a public declaration that this was what was going on, for obvious reasons). The rationale would be, as here, to enable the evaluation of particular practices or variations in practice to see if they are an aid (or otherwise) to the prayer life of the faithful. How a Bishop would choose a parish to be the guinea pig in the present case is, however, a different story.

It is quite clear to me from the past year or so of attending workshops, seminars, "dry Masses" ─ and also a number of actual celebrations where the new texts have been piloted ─ that much of it is going to depend on the intelligence and presiding style of the priest involved. Where you have a good man, much can be made even of very unpromising texts. (I fear, though, that many or perhaps even most priests will not be capable of, or even willing to, put in the effort required, for a lot of hard work and preparation is certainly needed.) So, for evaluation a Bishop might select a parish with a pastor who has the necessary qualities to "help make it work". He could, of course, select another parish where he knows that things are already average or below in order to provide a more realistic picture. Or he might designate both parishes as places for trialling the new texts.

It would be easier to carry out evaluations if music settings of the new texts were available, too, but even in the present situation no one seems to know at present how far in advance of implementation settings will be able to be made available by publishers.

[Southern Comfort]

A South African commentator on the website provides an insight as to how not to introduce the Missal:

The new translation was introduced in my country without any preparation of the people, and precious little help was offered to priests. Several bishops simply told their clergy to get on with it, "to read it over a few times and get used to it", and that it was no use complaining since Rome had already spoken. Priests and religious who have written articles questioning the translation, the document on which it is based, or its means of implementation have been marginalised by those at the bishops' conference who oversee matters liturgical. The vast majority of English-speaking laity dislike the new prayers. Some now attend Mass less often, or drive to a parish where the priest will not use the new Order of Mass. A few have left for the Anglican Church.

And this is precisely the problem. Things are chaotic in South Africa. It is quite clear that the new texts, in themselves, are a divisive force rather than the unitive force which Rome presumably intends. However, I think that catechesis on the texts themselves may only be of limited use. There also needs to be catechesis on the ars celebrandi.

Let's take an example of an area where catechesis on the texts is not going to be able to answer all the questions:

Eucharistic Prayer III (the same kind of thing applies to the other EPs too)

In a similar way, when supper was ended,
he took the chalice,
and giving you thanks he said the blessing,
and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,
THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT,
WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY
FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

The underlinings indicate where the problems lie.

First of all, Jesus did not take a chalice. The biblical Greek word is poterion, which means 'cup' or 'drinking vessel'. The Latin uses the word calix, and the default setting for the translators has been to use Latin cognates in the interests of a 'sacral language'. But calix does not mean 'chalice'; it refers to the form of the drinking vessel. Similar to the calix in a flower, it means a 'drinking vessel with a stem underneath the cup'. There is, of course, a perfectly good English word for this ─ 'goblet' ─ but apparently the translators did not want to use this because of the connotations of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc. (Yes, this really was the rationale.) So they used 'chalice', and it's a real 'noise factor', occurring no less than three times in six lines.

They could (and should) have stuck to 'cup', since in the second memorial acclamation we find this:

When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup,
we proclaim your death, O Lord,
until you come again.

Yes, 'cup' rather than 'chalice'. Apparently the rationale here was not to change an existing people's part (though of course that hasn't stopped them from changing people's parts elsewhere).

The other problem is one that we all know about: Jesus died for all, not for many. Yes, the Latin says pro multis rather than pro omnibus, but that is merely a carry-over from a Semitic word form where 'many' actually does indicate 'all'. You can tell people all you like that 'many' means 'all', but it still sounds as if it means 'many'. Perhaps even using 'the many' might not have solved this, since we often contrast the many with the few.

So, there are problems of etymology, consistency, and accuracy, and perhaps even a kind of political agenda; and in my view catechesis is not going to be able to explain any of that away. It will only point to the fact that the translation is less than totally satisfactory, which is certainly not what people want to hear.

Much better to concentrate on other aspects of liturgical catechesis ─ for example, that there's no elevation of the elements at the words of institution (this was true even in the Tridentine Mass). The rubrics say that the priest shows the bread / cup to the people. If he has already lifted them some way off the altar, as the rubrics prescribe, it may well be that the people can already see them ─ so no need for a further elevation. The elevation itself takes place at the doxology "Through him", which not only removes the danger of fixing on the consecration as a kind of 'magic moment' but also assists the perception that, as the Church believes, it is the whole Prayer that is in fact consecratory, and not just the bit in the middle.

[John Ainslie]

Here's Jungmann - Volume 1 page 363

"Both the greeting and reply are ancient................ Et cum spiritu tuo, a formula which betrays its Hebrew origin and has many parallels in St Paul. (references supplied) We render its full meaning by saying simply, "And with you too."

And the footnote:

This is a Semitism: Spiritus tuus = your person = you.

Here is a bit more of Jungmann, which may be useful to us supposed savants when we are asked to justify 'and with your spirit' - or should that be 'and with your Spirit'?

In the response the congregation for its part also confirms this community of desire, this will to be united. Do we have here only an acclamation in a wider sense? We will surely have to picture these responses in ancient times as acclamations somewhat stormy and unregulated. And it is certain, too, that for centuries the entire people considered this shout, this call as their very own. We can best understand the Et cum spiritu tuo as a popular consensus in the work of the priest, not that the congregation here gives the priest authority or power to act in its stead, but that the congregation once more acknowledges him as the speaker under whose leadership the united group will approach almighty God. Thus in the greeting and its response we have the same double note that reappears at the end of the oration; the Dominus vobiscum seems to anticipate the per Christum of the close of the oration, and the Et cum spiritu tuo is a forerunner of the people's agreement expressed in the Amen. How sadly we must admit that, just when we try to recall this simple salutation to its original vitality, we realize how difficult it is for us moderns to make this formality our own in all its former import.

That last sentence, written in the 1950s, is prophetic, is it not?

[presbyter]

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,

Having heard Bruce Harbert "live" on this, the use of "Chalice" is at Rome's insistence, not ICEL's.

[FrGareth]

The rubrics say that the priest shows the bread / cup to the people. If he has already lifted them some way off the altar, as the rubrics prescribe, it may well be that the people can already see them ─ so no need for a further elevation.

If I am holding something which is already visible to you, but I am now specifically instructed to show it to you, presumably I am being asked to highlight it further in some way at this moment.

This is also the case with the current rite - and at seminary it was sugegsted to us that the appropriate gesture of showing was forwards, outwards, towards the people rather than the elevation which is reserved for the doxology. Presumably the same can be applied to the new translation, unless ad oriens becomes obligatory!

FrGareth

[festivaltrumpet]

If I am holding something which is already visible to you, but I am now specifically instructed to show it to you, presumably I am being asked to highlight it further in some way at this moment.

...Presumably the same can be applied to the new translation, unless ad oriens becomes obligatory!

A certain school would contend that the General Instruction presumes ad orientem, therefore it does not presume that the consecrated species are already visible to the faithful.

[Southern Comfort]

If I am holding something which is already visible to you, but I am now specifically instructed to show it to you, presumably I am being asked to highlight it further in some way at this moment.

This is also the case with the current rite - and at seminary it was sugegsted to us that the appropriate gesture of showing was forwards, outwards, towards the people rather than the elevation which is reserved for the doxology. Presumably the same can be applied to the new translation, unless ad oriens becomes obligatory!

FrGareth

Precisely! Forwards, rather than upwards, and so not an elevation. A pity that not all seminaries suggest the same thing as Gareth's did, and that many students derive their style of celebration from watching the seminary professors (whose liturgical training has itself often been somewhat lacking) rather than from undergoing a thorough liturgy practicum.

My point is that it will be good for some laypeople to have an explanation of why priests who have been trained like Fr Gareth are not holding the elements at full stretch two feet or more above their heads in the middle of the Prayer. After all, Fr X does that, and he holds it for a full 30 seconds. It's so reverent.....

[Southern Comfort]

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,

Having heard Bruce Harbert "live" on this, the use of "Chalice" is at Rome's insistence, not ICEL's.

Yes, I have heard him say this too, and I used to feel a bit sorry for him, stuck between the rock and the hard place of bishops' conferences on the one hand and Rome on the other. But then he did ask for the job....

It doesn't really matter who insisted on this (and one could easily name the members of Vox Clara who were probably responsible). The fact is that it's demonstrably wrong.

Here's Jungmann - Volume 1 page 363

"Both the greeting and reply are ancient................ Et cum spiritu tuo, a formula which betrays its Hebrew origin and has many parallels in St Paul. (references supplied) We render its full meaning by saying simply, "And with you too."

And the footnote:

This is a Semitism: Spiritus tuus = your person = you.

Here is a bit more of Jungmann, which may be useful to us supposed savants when we are asked to justify 'and with your spirit' - or should that be 'and with your Spirit'?

In the response the congregation for its part also confirms this community of desire, this will to be united. Do we have here only an acclamation in a wider sense? We will surely have to picture these responses in ancient times as acclamations somewhat stormy and unregulated. And it is certain, too, that for centuries the entire people considered this shout, this call as their very own. We can best understand the Et cum spiritu tuo as a popular consensus in the work of the priest, not that the congregation here gives the priest authority or power to act in its stead, but that the congregation once more acknowledges him as the speaker under whose leadership the united group will approach almighty God. Thus in the greeting and its response we have the same double note that reappears at the end of the oration; the Dominus vobiscum seems to anticipate the per Christum of the close of the oration, and the Et cum spiritu tuo is a forerunner of the people's agreement expressed in the Amen. How sadly we must admit that, just when we try to recall this simple salutation to its original vitality, we realize how difficult it is for us moderns to make this formality our own in all its former import.

That last sentence, written in the 1950s, is prophetic, is it not?

Yes, Jungmann was a true prophet, and it's really good to re-read his work. Some traditionalist folk have recently been claiming that Jungmann later retracted his position on whether or not the earlier Church celebrated ad orientem. I wonder how long it will be before they claim that he also retracted on et cum spiritu tuo ?!

[presbyter]

I try not only to be pragmatic - it's coming get used to the idea - but also benevolent - looking towards what is good.

Perhaps we are starting to go round in circles. We are far from being alone in expressing deep, pastoral concern about the reception of the text - there's world-wide concern! But as Gabriel points out, it is coming, so let's get used to the idea. In response to the topic, is the purpose of the period of evaluation to support those Bishops whose voices have been lost so that Rome/Vox Clara/the Pope might be persuaded to allow ICEL to produce a more flowing, truly vernacular text? I'm sorry to say that the phrase "hiding to nothing" springs to mind.

We are being presented with what will seem to some, a text of unconscionably complex syntax. In order, truly to make sense of the celebrant's parts and transmit that sense to the faithful in its proclamation, the ordained ministers could be said to need a degree of skill akin to an RSC actor in a leading Shakespearean role. (Why are some of the sentences so long? Surely some of the relative clauses in the Latin could have been expressed as separate sentences!)

Just saying "wait" .... hmmm. Is there much point? I think I want to explore other possible strategies and for those of us at a certain meeting next week, perhaps we might thrash out what those could be.

[presbyter]

Just in case anybody is wondering what I'm writing about:

From the Ratio Translationis :

The unique style of the Roman Rite should be maintained in translation. By “style” is meant here the distinctive way in which the prayers of the Roman Rite are expressed. The principal elements of such a style include a certain conciseness in addressing, praising and entreating God, as well as distinctive syntactical patterns, a noble tone, a variety of less complex rhetorical devices, concreteness of images, repetition, parallelism and rhythm as measured through the cursus, or ancient standards for stressing syllables of Latin words in prose or poetry. (no. 112)

[presbyter]

May I ask....

What is / Who are the "Leeds Group" that Pecklers mentions - and what catechetical / formation resources have they produced?

[Southern Comfort]

May I ask....

What is / Who are the "Leeds Group" that Pecklers mentions - and what catechetical / formation resources have they produced?

Coming soon at an Australian outfit called Frayneworks [sometimes referred to as Frameworks] near you...... They've been doing their stuff for over two years. DVD with all bells and whistles.

[presbyter]

I think I want to explore other possible strategies and for those of us at a certain meeting next week.............

Post-meeting, is this a place to carry on the discussion (in a separate thread) or shall we just lob ideas over to the Formation Committee?

I'd just like to say that the text worked a lot better in prayerful proclamation than I thought it would, in an actual celebration of Mass.