|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jun 17, 2009 14:01:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jun 21, 2009 22:52:11 GMT
I'm waiting to see how many priests and "parish councils" refuse to use it, and what Rome will do.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 22, 2009 10:11:09 GMT
I suspect they won't formally refuse to use it - they'll just ignore it in practice and hope it will go away, in the expectation that the bishops and the vatican won't be willing to disicpline them. That is what they did with the Vatican documents banning female altar servers and communion in the hand.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jun 22, 2009 21:18:46 GMT
I suspect they won't formally refuse to use it - they'll just ignore it in practice and hope it will go away, in the expectation that the bishops and the vatican won't be willing to disicpline them. That is what they did with the Vatican documents banning female altar servers and communion in the hand. More scope for lay people to take a hand then, as with Summorum Pontificum.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 23, 2009 12:51:22 GMT
The big problem with this comparison is that SP is a matter of making it easier for priests/congregations to do something which they want to do. Making priests and administrators use the new translation if they don't want to do it will be far trickier. The important thing to bear in mind is that the Church is built around the principle of subsidiarity, that everything should be dealt with at a lower level where necessary. If Rome tried to intervene in every congregation the whole Church administration would seize up, so they are reluctant to interevene except in the most blatant cases - sometimes not even then. Subsidiarity also assumes the lower ranks respect and want to work with the centre, and sadly this is very often not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 23, 2009 14:51:23 GMT
I wonder if the Mass is being revised in languages other than English.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2010 11:39:24 GMT
Damian Thompson has a couple of posts on his blog about this, and about the TABLET'S involvement with an American campaign to stall the new translations www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12097EXTRACT Father Ryan writes that “before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program…” The author makes such efforts sound almost sinister, but in my book he is simply describing the process of catechesis. I hope that this process will be better handled than the “carefully orchestrated education program” that followed the postconciliar liturgical changes. In 1977 priests throughout the country were required to preach for three consecutive weekends, not simply on the issue of Communion-in-the-hand, but on why it should be done. Many priests who balked at the historically inaccurate catechetical materials were harassed by liturgical directors and even threatened by bishops with suspension. It seems that many of those who pushed for the reforms are waking up to find their program repudiated and have now become conservatives, opposed to change. EXTRACT ENDS
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Feb 4, 2010 19:54:47 GMT
I attended Mass today in a Jesuit church offered by a conservative Jesuit priest. He said the third Eucharistic Prayer, but instead of the banal translation: 'from age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west...' there was the more poetic 'from the rising to the sun to it going down' which is more consistent with both the Latin and the Scripture.
I think Fr. X McY SJ is jumping ahead of the possee on this one.
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 23, 2010 22:17:25 GMT
Yes, he's jumping the gun, for as far as I am aware, it is not yet legal to use the new translation in the dioceses of Ireland.
The words used ('from the rising of the sun to its going down') do not actually correspond verbatim to the new translation, which has 'from the rising of the sun to its setting'. How was the rest of the Mass? Did you notice any other differences?
As praiseworthy as it is to seek to be more faithful to Scripture and to the Fathers, nobody (not even a priest) may alter the words of the liturgical rite on his own authority. Remodelling the wording of the rite even in the direction of greater orthodoxy or greater beauty is a liturgical abuse.
For all the fulminating I have done on my blog against priestly departures from the approved text, I must confess to being a trespasser myself in this area, although as a layman: I refuse to reply 'and also with you' and instead say 'and with thy spirit', and I employ other similar tweaks in the responses here and there. I even recite a different version of the Gloria in Excelsis and the Nicene Creed. I excuse myself on the grounds that I am not participating in the liturgy in any kind of ministerial capacity, merely as one in a congregation of several others, that the English version is merely a (poor) translation of the Latin original anyway, and that giving my own version of the response in this way is no more egregious than not giving any response at all. I would not dare to tamper in this way with the Latin text, but the official vernacular just cries out for amendment.
This raises an interesting question on liturgical fidelity: the priest as minister of the liturgy is bound to use only the form given him by the Church (however badly translated or just plain banal it might be); but what about the laity? The posture of the priest is regulated by the rubrics, but not that of the laity; the laity are free (more or less) to kneel, stand or sit at various points in the Mass according to devotion or physical condition. The words to be used by the priest are prescribed in the text of the rite, but what about laity that may be assisting from outside the sanctuary (i.e. not in the capacity of servers)? Bearing in mind that the responses in the Latin rite were originally given only by the servers/choir, and that historically many laypersons present at Mass did not respond to the versicles at all.
Surely if one has the freedom not to respond at all one should also have the freedom to 'improve' the vernacular version of the responses? No?
I would not encourage my own practice in others; I resort to it because I am so irritated at the bland and inaccurate 1973 ICEL that still holds sway in our churches. When the new translation is finally in use, I have resolved to be faithful to it.
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 23, 2010 22:32:43 GMT
My last post strayed a bit off topic, but it would be interesting to see if it generates any discussion, or if there are others on this board who engage in the same kind of verbal emendations during Mass. One of the things that concerns me about the new translation—as heartily as I approve of it—is that nobody knows it's coming. Of course I have read much about it in Catholic news sources and on various blogs and other websites. The information is there if you want to find it. The problem is that most Catholics who attend Mass, whether regularly or sporadically, do not read Church news in any medium whatsoever except, perhaps, in The Irish Times (which gives a tendentious and ideologically partial slant to whatever religious matter it turns its attention). Consequently, most of the faithful have no idea that a fresh translation of the Mass is in preparation, never mind what it actually contains. My wife is a very stalwart Catholic, very much practicing and active in her parish, and when I first spoke to her on the subject of the forthcoming new translation of the Mass, her response was a blank and puzzled look. Perhaps some other posters on this forum have had different experience, but I have not heard any mention of this important liturgical revision at any Mass I have attended, either in Ireland or the United States. Not even once! If this situation is not remedied—and that soon—the time will come when use of the new translation becomes mandatory, and it will appear suddenly, out of the blue, shocking and confusing the majority of the faithful. They will have had no time to adjust to the idea, or any chance even to see the texts in advance of their actual liturgical use. I imagine that the faithful will continue to give the responses in the 1973 ICEL with which they are familiar, and that the horrendous 'and also with you' will never die. The updated link for the new translation on the USCCB site is now usccb.org/romanmissal/resources.shtml
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 23, 2010 22:45:25 GMT
I also think the replacement of the old ICEL will be a long drawn-out process, as I believe many clergy of a certain age will simply continue the version now current, blissfully ignoring the will of the Holy See, and I doubt that many people attending the Masses of such clergy will be moved to complain to the bishop about the non-implementation of the new text.
I cannot see a situation in which the new translation will be uniformly received and uniformly implemented. Many priests (particularly of a certain age) cannot even be faithful to the letter of Novus Ordo 1.0, so what hope is there that they will be faithful to Novus Ordo 2.0?
Younger clergy—including those more inclined to offer the Mass in the so-called 'Extraordinary Form'—are likely to be more sympathetic to the reform of the reform than their seniors.
Consequently we will have a liturgical patchwork in which the use of Old ICEL/New ICEL will vary from diocese to diocese, parish to parish, and quite likely even within the same parish. Possibly even within the same Mass, even if such lapses are not deliberate—I still hear 'John Paul our pope' being prayed for in the canon occasionally, the celebrant being carried along simply by force of habit.
I worry that the new translation will prove divisive; liturgical change ALWAYS entails pain, even if the change is for the better.
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 23, 2010 23:04:58 GMT
I worry also that ideological elements among the clergy and among lay persons in parishes/diocesan chanceries may attempt to make hay out of the pain caused by changing the text of the Mass. We have a case study of what is certainly a bad scenario, even if it is not absolutely 'worst case': that of South Africa, in which the new translation was catapulted into use out of nowhere and seemingly without much attempt to prepare the faithful for its sudden appearance on the First Sunday of Advent, 2008. Whether the new translation is still in use there to this day, I have been unable to discover. See this report by Rocco Palmo: whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2009/03/and-with-your-fiasco-in-first-run-new.htmlWas this simply well-meaning thoughtlessness on the part of the South African bishops, or does it indicate a deliberate attempt to stoke up resistance to restoring the liturgy? The news reports to which Palmo links are ambiguous. Did the complaints come mostly from the faithful in the pews, or from the set ensconced in diocesan and parish bureaucracy? Knowing the tactics of the liberals as I do, I am inclined to suspect the latter, and that the fury in South Africa was actually a carefully-arranged stunt, a propaganda coup designed to injure (if possible) the Holy See's reform of the liturgy. Expect much the same thing in the other English-speaking conferences, as soon as use of the new translation becomes mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 22, 2012 20:45:59 GMT
www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/09/survey-on-experience-of-new-missal-translation/#commentsThis discussion from the ACPI website actually has some interesting points (for a change). Along with the usual whingers there are some orthodox posters: Paul Andrew September 19th, 2012 at 1:50 pm Mr O’Leary, they’re personal perceptions. Growing up in the post-Vatican II Church, I nevertheless had a very clear feeling that the English translation of the Novus Ordo was sorely lacking, both in its accuracy and its banal use of language. The new translation is such a vast improvement that I no longer assist at Mass only on Sundays, but also on weekdays when time permits. Mr Finnegan, I’m delighted to inform you that the cappa magna has made its appearance on a number of occasions at a church where I worship, much to the approval of the ordinary man in the pews. Sean (Derry) September 19th, 2012 at 7:52 pm Careful there Paul, the cappa magna is a bit of a sore point with Eddie. Good to hear you too value the recent changes in the liturgy. In Long Tower Church, here in Derry there is a increasing number of men and women receiving communion on the tongue whilst kneeling (we still have altar rails as this church, under the protection of St. Columba, (and many good priests) survived the desecration suffered by most other churches under the guise of the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II. In fact just recently a priest even spoke out, during his sermon, about the evils of abortion and artificial contraception. There is hope... END OF EXTRACT as well as a post from someone who actually wants to make constructive suggestions about why the translation is the way it is and how it might be improved, rather than just using it as a pretext for throwing stones at the MAgisterium: EXTRACT Martin September 22nd, 2012 at 8:56 am I’m responsible for liturgy in a London parish without a resident priest. We first introduced the new translation in the summer of 2011 by using some of the sung Mass settings with the aim of embedding the sung texts in our minds before saying them. What has become clear is that many of the texts are indeed better sung than said. I was also told by someone involved in the translation process that the new texts were primarily composed to be sung rather than said, whereas the earlier translations – going back even to the very first ones in pre-ICEL 1960′s – were composed to be said. A musician has also pointed out to me that some of the present constructions of words and sentences reflect more North American intonation or accenting. This, then, may also affect the way in which we in Ireland, England, Wales or Scotland face difficulties in proclaiming, reading, or singing these new texts. END
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 15, 2012 19:19:00 GMT
This new book advocating a "reform of the reform" approach to the liturgy seems to have some interesting comments on the new translation: www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/10/15/the-dramatic-conversion-of-one-atheist-poet/EXTRACT I have just been reading Fr Uwe Michael Lang’s new book on the liturgy, The Voice of the Church at Prayer, published by Ignatius and distributed in the UK by Gracewing. It is very thought-provoking: it is not an SSPX-type lament at the “destruction” of the Tridentine rite of Mass, but a careful and scholarly examination of what a sacred language means and why we need to express our public worship in this way. Fr Lang is a keen supporter of Pope Benedict’s “reform of the reform” and his ruling that there is only one rite of Mass, divided into two forms, Ordinary and Extraordinary. He approves of the ICEL translation of 2010 and says, “Unlike its predecessor [the translation of 1973], the 2010 ICEL version makes the treasury of the Latin liturgical tradition available to the Church in the English-speaking world.” He adds that “it contributes greatly to the formation of a “sacred vernacular”…an idiom of worship that is distinguished from everyday speech and is experienced as the voice of the Church at prayer.” All this makes it easier to understand why the earlier translation sounded wrong and needed revision: it was banal, uninspiring, prosaic and inaccurate – when we require a language reflecting, as Fr Lang writes, “our aspirations for goodness, for truth, for beauty and for love.” I recall my brother telling me that when he fell in love with his wife he was inspired to write poetry to her (and he would not describe himself by any means as a poet); the heightened emotion he felt simply could not be articulated in the ordinary way. Well – if that is how we respond to a human being we love, how much more should our encounter with God in the liturgy elevate our form of expression?.. END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Mar 1, 2013 15:03:12 GMT
Fr Lang is a regular on the liturgy conference circuit.
|
|