US recognitio for new Missal received

[Southern Comfort]

The Americans have got their text. Unfortunately, it came in the form of a series of Word files which now need to be checked word-by-word for modifications before a final text can be delivered to publishers. Their national propers came as printed hardcopy — no electronic file at all.

For the Order of Mass, the news is that the expect modification to the absolution is there, that alternative forms for Penitential Rite C have been approved, the expected modifications to the Nicene Creed are there, that there are 'minor modifications' to the EPs, that the doxology to the EP has been tweaked (which will mean music settings that use this will need to be changed). 'Christ had died' is not back in. The revised text is already up on the USCCB website.

The starting date for the new Missal in the States is confirmed as the 1st Sunday of Advent 2011.

The grapevine is saying that the US Bishops will not allow any lead-in time for the use of new music settings, so they will not be allowed to be used before then. This means that the first time people will sing a new Gloria will be Christmas Eve/Day 2011! Sounds a bit crass, if true.

In the meantime, OCP has rushed out an electronic mailing saying how excited they are to be able to sell their new and revised settings. (Don't know if any of them are going to need reprinting/recording to reflect changes in the text — perhaps they don't know either.)

I have not heard that England & Wales have received a similar recognitio. I'm sure this forum will be among the first to know when we do.

[johnquinn39]

- From Pray Tell Wit ...


FAQ: The New English Missal Translation

Aug 22

Posted by Other Voices in Translation / New Missal | 15 Comments

The editors carefully considered whether to run this – it’s from an anonymous Pray Tell reader. Since the last two questions reflect Pray Tell’s position, here it is.

* * * * *

What principles lie behind the translation of the new missal?
Primarily, the principle of personalities triumphing over policies; secondarily, the principle of centralism triumphing over collegiality.

Does the new translation faithfully follow the Roman instruction on translation Liturgiam authenticam?
Yes, except when it doesn’t.

Does the new translation faithfully translate the Latin of the Missale Romanum?
Yes, except when it doesn’t.

Does the inclusion in the new translation of elements of the current translation suggest inconsistency on the part of Roman authorities?
No; it suggests, rather, the passage from truth to greater truth.

Is there a discernible pattern to the inclusion of elements of the current translation in the new translation?
The pattern of inclusion of the current translation, like the triune nature of the Godhead, lies beyond the powers of human reason but is not contrary to human reason.

What is the Holy See offering to the English-speaking churches with this new translation?
A strong apologetic for the rejected 1997/1998 sacramentary.

What, then, is the primary reason for accepting the new missal?
Obedience to authority apart from narrow considerations of competence or rationality.

What can one expect to gain by accepting the new missal?
The obedience proposed above is a rich source of grace. It is precisely in this sense that the new missal will contribute to the sanctification of clergy and lay ministers.

What role did concern for the People of God play in the creation of the new missal?
The who?

What role did the teachings of the Second Vatican Council play in the creation of the new missal?
The what?

How will the new missal serve to restore a sense of mystery to the sacred liturgy?
Complicated sentence structure will make it a mystery what a pronoun might refer to, or which noun might go with the verb.

What attitude on the part of clergy and lay ministers will be most helpful in the implementation of the new missal?
A desire to serve the People of God by making the best of things, no matter what.

Is that last answer intended ironically?
No; it is, rather, the most serious response here given.

[JW]

O Vatican, in whom the completeness of all knowledge of Albion’s language resides, bestow, we beseech you, in your ineffable righteousness and bounty, to not only enhance your Anglophonic ultimate adjustments to the confirmed text of Vox Clara concerning the Roman Missal to the entire satisfaction of everyone in the Roman Curia, but also to facilitate training to commence with alacrity in order that the aforementioned text may not be somniferous to congregations in the pews of England and Wales, or even more horrendously, affect them so negatively that they are eternally estranged from the ceremonies, rites and passages of their ecclesiastical edifices. Who lives and reigns in the ivory towers of the Vatican City, without shorts. We ask this not being scantily clad and may therefore advance rejoicing towards our eternal terminus.

[alan29]

that is totally ad rem!

[musicus]

Indeed. In fact, I would go further, and say to JW, rem acu tetigisti.

[NorthernTenor]

Ah, the nostalgia. This thread quite takes me back to the 1970s: the laboured efforts of Punch (RIP) and those ghastly ICEL and ICET translations. Is there a connection here (other than the age of the contributors)?

[docmattc]

Those of us who experienced the new texts (or at least something very close to them) at Summer School would largely agree that they are generally a vast improvement. There are places where the text could be made better by slight tweaks, but we really shouldn't let the good be the enemy of the perfect. The new texts are not going to be disastrous, unless those who will be implementing them in parishes have already decided that they are disastrous.

The politics of the translation process is interesting, and casts a certain amount of light on how Rome views the Church outside its walls, but its not relevant to presenting the new texts to the people in the pews.

but also to facilitate training to commence with alacrity

That is going to be the key. One thing we should have learnt from the introduction of the Norvus Ordo is the importance of not dropping things on people unexpectedly. As far as I can tell though, many parishioners across the country remain in blissful ignorance that this is on its way.

[Alan]

Those of us who experienced the new texts (or at least something very close to them) at Summer School...

Not quite close enough (e.g. the Doxology to the Eucharistic Prayer) for those of us who have composed new settings At least none of the UK settings are in print yet (not even the MacMillan, though it is typeset).

I see that OCP are making their new and revised settings available now, although they won't be permitted for use until Advent 2011. I hope our UK publishers will do likewise as soon as the recognitio is received. Parish musicians are going to need time to learn this new music.

Alan Smith

[oopsorganist]

Oh it's Soke.

We haven't got round to learning the last lot yet.............................

[alan29]

I notice that the German bishops have booted out their latest funerals "translation" and have reverted to the previous one.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/latest-news.php
An interesting precedent?

[musicus]

German-speaking bishops have deemed a new, Vatican-approved burial liturgy a “failure”, and reverted to the liturgy that was in use before the new version was promulgated. The revised edition of “The Burial Rites of the Church in the Dioceses of German-speaking Regions” appeared in September 2009, after many years of preparation. But earlier this year the German bishops branded the new edition a failure, it has emerged, following complaints about the awkwardness of the translations from the Latin and the unwieldy size of the published volume. (my emphasis)

As you say alan29, very interesting. I wonder if others will do likewise.

[NorthernTenor]

German-speaking bishops have deemed a new, Vatican-approved burial liturgy a “failure”, and reverted to the liturgy that was in use before the new version was promulgated. The revised edition of “The Burial Rites of the Church in the Dioceses of German-speaking Regions” appeared in September 2009, after many years of preparation. But earlier this year the German bishops branded the new edition a failure, it has emerged, following complaints about the awkwardness of the translations from the Latin and the unwieldy size of the published volume. (my emphasis)

As you say alan29, very interesting. I wonder if others will do likewise.

Two interesting issues here - one of literary merit and the other of authority. I am not qualified to pass an opinion on the merits of the old and new German-language translations. I am, as a Catholic, qualified to observe that Rome's authority trumps that of my own Bishops' Conference when push comes to shove (especially as the concept and authority of the national Bishops' Conference is a novelty, owing more to the ideas of the European Reformation than Catholic tradition). My heart bleeds for the German Catholics who feel that Rome's judgement has poor literary merit, since I've put up with some truly ghastly and innacurate English language translations since I became a Catholic many years ago, but lived with them because that's what Rome - on poor advice - authorised. That's life (says he with a certain amount of glee).

[alan29]

I might be wrong, but I thought that the principle of collegiality was promulgated by the entire Church including the Pope in Council. Is someone saying that the Council was in error?

[NorthernTenor]

The Council affirmed the principal of Collegiality. It's a long way from there to elevate the authority of the national ecclesiastical bureaucracies over Rome and dioceasan bishops in the way some seem to want to do.

[contrabordun]

This is great. Somebody posts a link to a story that "German speaking bishops" are unhappy with their new translation and have reverted to the old one and Our Man In The Cloth Cap and Cassock knows immediately that the poor German diocesan bishops were railroaded into this against their better judgement by their national ecclesiastical bureaucracies.

And by the way, talking of ghastly, the spelling is "inaccurate". I know it's bad form to pick up on typos in an online forum, but in this case...