The ACP site has another whinge about the new OF Mass translation, from a FR Mannion. Normally I would put it on the ACP thread, but it so concisely illustrates some of the issues at stake, and some of the questions begged, that I thought it should be discussed here:
www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2015/12/sacred-language-or-trojan-horse/Some choice passages with comments:
EXTRACT
The Congregation for Divine Worship was entrusted with the task of translation by Pope John Paul (now St. John Paul) and continued its work under his successor Pope Benedict. Without any evident research to substantiate its position, the Congregation concluded that current declining church attendance was due in part to the “secular language” of the existing translation [They did not make any such claim about church attendance; the changes refer to the nature of the liturgy and to the fact that the old translation into English was full of inaccuracies - HIB], so it decided that a more “sacred language” was needed in the new translation, and proceeded to act accordingly. The current widely noted “Francis effect” calls into question the validity of that assumption.
The first signs of storms ahead came with the news that we were to return to “and with your spirit” as well as “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…” Recently I discovered a 1961 Bridal Missal (prior to Vatican 2) which had the Latin Tridentine Mass with the English translation. There were stunning similarities with the current translation. I also discovered that in the Congregation tasked with the new translation, “you had more chance of finding a needle in a haystack than of identifying one of its senior officials who celebrated Mass in any other rite (than the Tridentine rite)” Also “the final version was signed off by a sub-committee of non-English speakers, after they had made their own ‘improvements’”1 Later a priest friend commented that in his view, English was not the first language of the translators.
END OF EXTRACT
Note the following points:
(1) He assumes continuity with the Tridentine Rite is ipso facto undesirable.
(2) HE never refers to the Latin text of the OF Mass, which was the standard from which the translations were supposed to be made, to see if it contains the features he denounces as "Tridentine"
(3) Those of you who check the link and read the full text will see that he never argues for his ideas on the basis of merit - he simply quotes some very general principles from the Vatican II document (for example, a reference to "useless repetition" does not necessarily imply all repetition is useless; cf Catherine Pickstock on the "liturgical stammer" - and of course he never mentions the passages calling for the retention of Latin and Gregorian chant) and implies we should all accept his reading of it ex auctoritate.
(4) HE objects to "enter under my roof" even though it is actually in the Gospel.
EXTRACT
In the new translation we read in the Apostle’s Creed “He descended into Hell” despite the fact that some years back Pope Benedict writing about Limbo said it was never a dogma of the church but a theological proposition. So where did Christ descend into according to Rome?
END
He can't tell the difference between limbus Patrem and Limbus infantem, and he doesn't bother with the minor point that descendit ad inferos is in the original. And of course he doesn't bother with the First Epistle according to St PEter which refers to Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison before the Resurrection, which is the ultimate source of the relevant clause. Will Fr Mannion take this up with St PEter when he sees him?
EXTRACT
[Referring to "and with your spirit" -Hib] 2). In the Greco-Roman world the body was a valueless piece of junk, weighing down the soul. According to one ancient thinker, “The body is a tomb.” Plotinus, the father of Neoplatonism, was ashamed to have had a body. Epictetus, the Greek Stoic philosopher said of himself, “You are a poor soul, burdened with a corpse.” What is beyond question is that Paul in his letters reflects this linguistic and cultural understanding. So today in the 21stcentury, a first century understanding is foisted on the worshipping community.
END OF EXTRACT
So St Paul is to be disregarded for having a first century sensibility. The Gospels are first century documents, so are they to be junked too? Why does reference to the spirit necessarily imply the body is junk?
EXTRACT
The Council of Trent (1547 – 1563) to which we owe the Tridentine Mass took place in a different world. It imposed a single Latin liturgy on the Church, (then a largely European Church) out of fear of heresy and it suppressed many local rich and varied liturgies which were totally orthodox.
The laity was largely uneducated and illiterate apart from the upper classes and the very idea of spirituality for lay people was relatively new. The industrial revolution, the growth of cities and mass literacy were undreamed of.
Today’s world is radically different. Not only basic education, but also third level education is increasingly within the grasp of many. The emancipation of women in society, (less so in the church) means that today many of the laity and many religious women are more educated than some of the clergy. All of this has fundamental ramifications as to what constitutes a meaningful, dynamic and authentic worshipping community.
END
Actually, the laity are sufficiently educated to see that Father doesn't know what he's talking about here. The Roman Liturgy was codified at Trent, not created ex nihilo. Local rites of sufficient antiquity were explicitly preserved - as were the Eastern Rites - mass suppression of local rites in favour of the Roman rite was a later phenomenon, and was encouraged by the greater ease with which dubious reformers were able to tamper with local rites.
EXTRACT
People today look for more active involvement and participation than in the past. Megachurches in the U.S. are characterized by huge, well-trained choirs, direct input from talented, charismatic speakers and active involvement by the congregation in the worship. African and Latin American worshippers look for smaller groups, active participation in communal singing and dancing and charismatic leadership. All of which indicates that Masses with passive recipients while the priest reads everything he utters are recipes for declining congregations, with the sheep leaving for other pastures or for none with the rise of secular humanism.
The method used at the time of Trent was unquestioned then, but is totally irrelevant in the 21st century. That academics in Rome should have the power today to dictate to laity, clergy and local hierarchies, is totally at variance with the ideals Christ preached and lived in His earthly life and which were practiced in the early Christian communities of the New Testament. Surely hierarchies in the various language groups, in consultation with clergy and laity, ought to be the ones to ultimately determine what is an acceptable method of worship in the contemporary world.
Does Rome really believe that God’s Church only has “Authentic Liturgy” when throughout the world, everybody is mechanically saying the exact same words at the exact same point as dictated by Rome? It would be difficult to justify this understanding of worship by appeal to anything in the New Testament, early Church history, or in any document of Vatican Two.
END
This makes it all too clear that Fr Mannion is all for horizontal worship over vertical - he sees it as being all about the congregation. The fact that megachurches of the sort he mentions reflect a Protestant Evangelical style of worship and that many of them are notoriously based on shallow emotionalism is below his consideration. This piece strongly suggests that Fr Mannion thinks the congregation should be free to make up the liturgy as they go along, and Fr Joe O'Leary declares in the combox that this is exactly what HE wants.
A very revealing piece about the mindset of Fr Mannion, and some at least of the ACP gyrovagues.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrovagues