And so we start anew ... but does anyone know when?

[johnquinn39]

- From the NPM in Detroit today:

Pastoral Musician’s Breakfast today, opening with this, sung to DE EERSTEN ZIJN DE LAATSTEN (”What is this place?”):

What is this job / that we are doing?
Singing, directing, playing too.
Eight days a week, / twenty-four seven,
Having no life – we just make do.
Cantoring, playing, strumming, or ringing,
Sometimes we add drums.
We sure have lots of fun!

For many years / all the same mass parts,
Now news from Rome – it’s all arranged.
Why did the pope / and all the bishops
Think that it all should now be changed?
“That you should enter under my roof,”
“And with your spirit” too -
And so we start anew. …

[nazard]

We start anew because the present translation is just plain wrong. The song quotes two very obvious examples, but there are plenty more. It would be better to enquire why we went wrong last time to make sure it never happens again.

Now, does anyone have any ideas for how to get the message through that some of the proposed english of the new translation is, to say the least, odd?

[Lakelark]

I rather think we've been here before.
When I was a student, we were encouraged to produce translations - of other languages as well as Latin - into natural and appropriate English. So we needed some military vocabulary to do Caesar's Gallic Wars. When it came to translating scholastic philosophy we had to find appropriate ways of rendering sentences which included such alien concepts as "ens", and "esse" used as a noun, and so on. Neither Caesar nor Aquinas could be translated into the comfy fireside language of The Three Bears. It seems to me that our contemporary masters are insisting on treating liturgical Latin as a stand-alone dialect, and in doing so are maintaining the approach which has been adopted by linguists for several generations. The resllt is bound to be strange, judged from the standpoint of everyday English. I only need to say that the natural English version of "Dominus vobiscum" is "May the Lord be with you". But that is not what we get.
In general terms I think we all have to learn a new dialect of English, which is not totally natural, but is arguably appropriate. And I for one suspect the argument will never end. Enough of all that. I don't doubt that spleen will be vented in the near future, in this forum, and on a broader plane.

[johnquinn39]

I think we're straying off topic.

Whatever your views on the new translation, it looks like we are going to be getting it.
The question is when - and when do we start learning the revised settings.

There seems to be no information on the BCEW site.

Does anyone know what's happening?

[Southern Comfort]

Based on receiving a final text in July, the proposed plan was to implement just the Order of Mass from the beginning of September 2011, with the rest of the Missal starting on the 1st Sunday oi Advent 2011.

However, it now looks as if the final text may not arrive until October or possibly even December, which fairly certainly puts everything back.

We'll be able to start learning new settings 6 months before whatever the start date for the Order of Mass turns out to be.

[dmu3tem]

Whether - strictly speaking - one is off topic or not, I do think it important to ask whether the texts we use - and are going to use - are appropriate. I am not sure whether one should talk about a text being 'right' or 'wrong', unless one is concerned about whether an accurate translation has been made of a Latin original. The important question, surely, is whether a given text 'resonates' with the atttitudes, feelings, beliefs and modes of expression of the people who actually use it. If it does not, then - willy-nilly - people will vote with their feet and something different will then have to be devised. In other words we must ask whether a series of texts derived from a liturgy that was appropriate for Roman people in the C4-5th (with later Medieval modifications) meets the religious-spiritual requirements of English speakers in C21st Britain. One answer is that it does, because people value a sense of continuity with the past; but I am not sure whether everyone accepts this, or, even if they do, whether it necessarily outweighs other more immediate concerns. Another argument is that we must get the liturgy 'right' (especially with sacraments) because otherwise God will not respond. Personally, I find this viewpoint fantastic. If God is all wise, all knowing, and loves us, then surely he will respond if our intentions are sincere rather than because we have got the vocabulary and associated gestures 'correct'. Christ himself at various points in the Bible traduces Scribes and Pharisees who obey the letter of the law but not its spirit. Now you could say that an aspect of 'sincerity' lies in the way we try to 'get things right'; but note that part of that 'sincerity' is tied up with the way we express ourselves. Our choice of vocabulary/gesture enables us to show what we really mean. In short an over-exact observance of stereotyped formulae can obscure this.

A related issue concerns uniformity. It is surely obvious by now that the repeated delays and uncertainty surrounding the introduction of the new translations are in part due to the tension between different regions and the centralising instincts of Rome. Yet this would all be worthwhile if 'getting things right' in a uniform way is a good thing. Many people assume that it is. After all, is it not desirable that 'we all sing from the same hymn sheet?' Do we not all profess the same Christian beliefs? When we travel, is it not appropriate that, on going to church, we encounter a liturgy that is familiar? Yet is it not equally obvious that local, regional, and national concerns differ from one another? We may have the same basic beliefs, but we might not feel able to express them in the same way, and we may need to put different emphases on them according to varying local circumstances. There is also value in cultivating a sense of local identity (The 'When two or three people are gathered together in my name I will be among you' syndrome). We know that, even in the C4th, other Christians (including those with ties to Rome) succesfully developed and used other liturgical texts. In the C17th-mid C19th French Catholics legitimately used an enormous variety of Gallican liturgies. In pre-Reformation England there were four separate liturgical 'Uses'. Diversity is a legitimate aspect of Catholic liturgical tradition. So we should ask whether, given differences in idiom, accent, and social background, a uniform text/transalation can satisfactorily meet the needs of English speakers in Britain, the USA, Australia and many other places besides.

[justMary]

Based on receiving a final text in July, the proposed plan was to implement just the Order of Mass from the beginning of September 2011, with the rest of the Missal starting on the 1st Sunday oi Advent 2011.

However, it now looks as if the final text may not arrive until October or possibly even December, which fairly certainly puts everything back.

We'll be able to start learning new settings 6 months before whatever the start date for the Order of Mass turns out to be.

Count yourselves lucky!

I'd always thought that "Advent 2011" happened in the year 2011, just before 2012 started. But the bishops in New Zealand seem to believe that it is in 2010. This press release refers: http://www.cathcom.org.nz/?p=325

The key phrase being "It is our desire that we will be able to pray these new texts on the First Sunday of Advent, 28 November 2010."

I wonder what version their printed texts are coming from.