One year from this first Sunday of Advent, the Mass that we hear at our local parish is going to be very different, and what a blessing it will be. The words of the Mass will be a much closer reflection of the Latin original. There is a beautiful dignity to the text. The music of the Mass will be integral to the printed edition, making it far more easy to sing rather than just say the Mass. Long-standing problems with the old translation (such as poor and highly suspect paraphrases in crucial prayers) are washed away.
What this change amounts to is a new beginning for the Missal of Paul VI, a reparation of a botched translation with origins back to 1969, and a re-embrace of Catholic teaching, identity, and native liturgy. It is a fresh start for modern Catholicism as we know it. More precisely, what we will experience is a Catholicism as we haven’t known it but should have known it. This is much closer to what the Fathers of Vatican II originally imagined.
The whole of the Catholic world should be celebrating. I’m quite certain that Catholics in the pews, come Advent 2011, are going to feel a profound sense of relief. However, it is different in the world of published opinion. The early indication is that it’s going to be a rough year. Essentially the problem comes down to this: this new translation of the Missal has few defenders, people will to stand up and say without hesitation what I said above. The Missal itself is caught in the same trap that the revision after the Vatican II found itself in, with a few differences given the timing and the evolution of liturgical debate in the intervening years.
Here is a summary of the problem.
The most erudite, learned, and passionate among the defenders of the Roman Rite are these days mostly attached to what is called the “extraordinary form,” the ritual of the Mass as it stood in the 1962 Missal that Benedict XVI liberated three years ago in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
By habit and temperament, these “traditionalists” have lost heart to engage the battle of the “Novus Ordo.” Quite frankly, they just don’t care that much about it. We all have limited time and theirs is invested elsewhere. They have their Mass or are looking to get their Mass in a form that they regard as obviously superior. An improvement on a Missal they regard as a hopeless failure is just not something that they can get too excited about. Still, these people should remember, as Fr. Z pointed out, that the ordinary form is the Catholic experience of the overwhelming majority (is it 80%? 90%); if you love the faith, you have to care to some extent about this issue.
Meanwhile, I’m beginning to realize that the group known as the “progressives” or the “left,” the adherents to a theory wrongly known as “liberalism,” appear to be conducting some kind of guerrilla warfare campaign against the new translation. They are pettifogging it to pieces. They complain about the process, the particulars of tiny changes, the printing, the tones used, the methods and approaches, the people involved, the timing of the release, the delays, and everything else one can possibly complain about. Complain, complain, complain — that’s all they seem to be able to do with regard to the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal in English.
This campaign is so relentless, so petty, so pervasive that one begins to suspect an agenda at work here, namely, a goal to poison the atmosphere to such an extent that everyone will gain some kind of vague impression that the release of this vastly improved and corrected translation is some kind of disaster for the Church and the faith. One stands and looks at their blogs and listens to their words with amazement.
After all, the new Missal is a vast upgrade in every way one can imagine. This isn’t even a debatable point. And what is the choice? Are we really just supposed to continue forever to use the shag-carpet translation that was so wickedly foisted on us in 1970? The style is ridiculously childish by comparison – perhaps it accorded with the Sesame Street standards of the time but these do not wear well. The new Missal uses dignified, liturgical language. As incredible as it is to imagine, the “progressives” are giving the impression that they are as attached to this lame-duck anachronism as they are to the music and vestments of the period! And perhaps they are. Perhaps the goal is to discredit any further reforms made in the name of the new Missal – reforms such as….musical reform in which we sing propers instead of some guy’s songs.
There is a third party to consider: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is the group that actually voted for the new translation. Surely the USCCB will lead the charge in rallying behind the new translation? Sadly, the answer is no. The problem is essentially one that is intrinsic to any bureaucracy: it can never admit a mistake. All change has to be presented as a change for the sake of change, but not an improvement or correction or reversal of error.
Thus, if you look at the USCCB’s elaborate website on the New Missal, and go to its frequently asked questions, you will find that the first question (a perfectly reasonable question) is: “Why was there a need for a new translation?” The answer begins with a lot of yada yada about history. And finally explains that there was a need for “prayers for the celebration of recently canonized saints, additional prefaces for the Eucharistic Prayers, additional Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Intentions, and some updated and revised rubrics (instructions) for the celebration of the Mass.”
Huh? That explains why things are added to the Missal. But it does not explain why the entire Missal has been completely re-translated from top to bottom, to the point that virtually no parts of the lame-duck translation survive in tact. It’s like completely redecorating your three-story house, and when someone asks why you did it, you answer that it is because you have a new lamp. In other words, this answer makes no sense.
The published answer to the reasonable question continues with a final sentence that vaguely hints at but does not explain the real reason. Now, this is rather boring so don’t give up in your attempt to read it carefully: “To aid the process of translation of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued Liturgiam Authenticam, in 2001, an Instruction on the vernacular translation of the Roman Liturgy which outlines the principles and rules for translation. In 2007, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued the Ratio Translationis for the English Language, which outlined the specific rules for translation in English.”
Now, again, this is not a reason but it does explain the guidelines. Those guidelines came from Rome. You have to read between the lines, but it essentially comes down to this. The current translation was a disaster of such epic proportions that Rome had to intervene and explain in detail how to translate a Latin Missal into an English one, and enforce those rules so that something could be done to give the people back their faith!
Years ago, I worked on a series of articles that compared the existing translation to the Latin text. Even with my rudimentary knowledge of Latin, I was so shocked at what I found. I had planned to write a series of pieces, but I had to stop after the second article, simply because I could not mentally handled what I was finding. It was too alarming to actually face in its full reality. It would have been bad enough if the translation had been merely incompetent, but that was not the problem. The problem was fundamentally theological. Distinctive Catholic teaching had been bypassed. Words were changed to eliminate doctrines. Issues of divine importance had been systematically swept away. Studying this material was as destabilizing an experience as I had ever been through.
One year from now, all of this will be history. I’m so incredibly grateful. At long last, Catholicism will speak in English, at our own parishes, in a manner that actually reflects what is in the real Missal. It might take generations to figure out how it came to be otherwise. Something really went haywire. But we can let the historians figure that out. What is fantastic is that our long period of captivity is nearly at an end.
Who will rally around the new Missal? We can’t count on the “progressives.” The “traditionalists” long ago lost interest. The big bureaucracies are caught up in their own issues, and fear even so much as admitting that this Missal will be an improvement. Whom does that leave to celebrate and defend our new Catholic reality one year from now? You and me.
Jeffrey,
I really want to believe when you say that the new translation "is a fresh start for modern Catholicism as we know." I don't see the new translation as a panacea, but at best a step in the right direction. In other words, it won't stop parishes from using the same old music, or priests from ad libbing or commenting at mass. In fact, I'm afraid that it will be business as usual in most parishes.
My feeling is that the hostility you mention coming from the progressives will translate (no pun intended) into indifference on the parish level, the new texts seen as just one more change in a long line of changes. True enough, this represents a golden opportunity for significant and positive change – I just wonder how many parishes will take advantage of it.
I’m so incredibly grateful.
Surely you mean ineffably grateful? 😎
Well done.
Romulus
Sam…
I rather agree with your assessment here and have said so many times in the past. Most Catholics will be indifferent or not even really notice. They read the responses and the Creed from the Missalette and will go with whatever is there. The music will remain the same until it is forced to change by some outside force, be it the Holy See, the USCCB, the local Bishop or the Pastor.
Hostility from progressives will be pretty much limited to their small corner of the internet where they will continue to pretend to speak for the majority, Diocesan newspapers and those who can still make it to the Parish Council meetings without a walker. Several years down the road they will be a memory, much like Masses said around a card table in the Church basement or Burlap Banners hung over the stained glass windows. What makes it so pathetic is that they know this already, and yet they go on as though there is still some kind of a valiant "cause" to fight for.
Last time I heard, my (too liberal even for me) former parish in Boston was putting together a committee to talk about "how to handle" the implementation of the new Missal. I had volunteered (my decade-old High School Latin making me more qualified for this job than any of the laity and possibly most the clergy). They were not interested in my help. I found out a bit later that the purpose of the committee was something like "figure out how much of this new translation to use, and how much to ditch/correct/change."
Ugh.
JT's glowing review of the new translation glosses over some real problems, and I'm (only a tiny bit) offended at his suggestion that the concerns raised are simply liberal reactionism and pettiness.
But he's not far off: MOST of the concerns raised probably are liberal reactionism and pettiness.
My advice to those of you with problems/concerns/issues with the new translation:
Say your peace. Once. Say it respectfully, succinctly, and with thoughtfulness. Say it somewhere publicly where it can be referenced later. But only say it once.
Then, find good things to say. You can occasionally refer back to your previous statement so you don't lose your liberal street cred, but only as a way of magnifying your compliments. Like so:
"As I've said, this translation may not be perfect, but WHOA, isn't 'from the rising of the sun to it's setting' so much cooler than "from east to west?!'" OR
"As I've said, I'm not so sure about this 'under my roof' business, but I'm so glad that 'my soul shall be healed' is finally right!" OR
"As I've said, I wish they had been more open and honest about the process, but aren't you excited we'll be able to sing Adam Bartlett's new Gloria soon?" OR
"As I've said, I'm not really a fan of bow-ties, but isn't it nice to see someone who consistently dresses like a gentleman?"
Got it?
You don't need to give up your well-cultivated liberal persona in order to say nice things about something.
In all seriousness…
As I have said, there are and have been some legitimate issues, but- It's long past time everyone realizes the only downside at this point is there will be exactly three slight hiccups during the first two or three weekends of Advent 2011. The people will stumble over "And with your Spirit" in the Introductory Rites and the Preface to the Eucharistic Prayer (they'll have it by the Concluding Rites), and they will mumble through "under my roof." By the Fourth Sunday of Advent, no one will have a problem. Before Ash Wednesday, no one will even remember that they used to say something else. For goodness sakes, give the complaining a rest.
In the final analysis, there are only two ways to view the new translation missal:
1. a giant leap forward
2. not that big a deal.
The vaunted third option (a tragedy and an affront to all the world) is ridiculous.
If you think it's a giant leap forward, say so- and tell your friends. If you think it's not a big deal, say some nice things to ease the transition. If you think it's a tragedy and an affront, get a life.
In all the discussion about the new missal, I would like to see some credit given to the many liturgical musicians who did their best, all these years, to provide high quality sacred music for the Novus Ordo in English (using the Vatican-approved translation given to us by the Church in 1969). It hasn't been an easy task to accomplish in the face of lack of support from clergy and parish liturgy teams, from congregational members who want something more "upbeat" and contemporary, from religous superiors and community members who don't want too much Latin (usually translated as "none at all"), from music composers and publishers who have provided precious little in the way of acceptable resources in English. The musicians of which I speak can't be blamed for using the approved English translation that has been in force since the days of Paul VI, shouldn't be blamed for singing hymns when, in many cases, they were the only decent music available, shouln't be blamed for attempting to get priests and congregations alike to sing the ordinary of the Mass, even when the available settings were only marginally well-written.
I am one who is more than pleased with the direction that Benedict XVI has set for us to take and I am looking forward to the implementation of the new Missal. Thankfully, more and more resources are becoming available for us to use to sing the mass with reverence and solemnity. (I am even ready to sponsor a hymnal buring, if necessary). All that being said, I get the impression lately, that there are some who seem to imply that what I, and many others like me, have done for the past forty years has been misguided.
I appreciate this tribute above, much needed and very true. It has been a long haul. They are to be appreciated and admired for all they have done. There are also many musicians who struggled for Latin chant, teaching all these decades, going against the prevailing wisdom and being hounded after and persecuted for doing the right thing.
The doubleknit dinosaurs are in a rage, but so what? The younger clergy appears to be on board from what I hear, so if the geriatrics wish to apply for an indult to use the tired old translations in their private chapels, then let them. I feel sorry for them that they are so rigid and inflexible that they seem to be incapable of change.
An exception to the episcopal evasions about why the change is necessary is Archbishop Coleridge of Canberra, who has been heavily involved in the process and is not afraid to call the soon-to-be-superseded version a banal paraphrase that dumbs down the theology, bleaches out the references to Scripture (he is a biblical scholar by background) and tends toward the Pelagian and congregationalist in its theology.
Sam Schmitt is right. Here is how the Gather Hymnal group from GIA is preparing for the new Mass translation. Don't see any Gregorian Chant or Palestrini.
http://www.giamusic.com/sacred_music/revised_mass_settings.cfm
http://www.giamusic.com/sacred_music/new_mass_settings.cfm
You can even freely download their new approved hymns.
http://www.giamusic.com/sacred_music/choral_reading_sessions_free.cfm
the new and revised settings they are highlighting are mostly dismal, even for this lover of Catholic folk and Sacro-pop.
I liked "Mass for a Servant Church," but I'm sure it will considered too hard.
As music, I really enjoyed the Agnus Dei from "Mass of Plenty," but it's way too theatrical and "done" for liturgy, I fear. Also the Holy, Holy from that same setting was… cheezy.
The Maryknoll Mass was promising, but got annoying after a few minutes.
Misa Una Santa Fe was kinda neat, but I have a hard time imagining that the kind of parish that would have a full brass choir and timpani would be the same kind of parish that would want to do that setting.
My problems with Mass settings (long since) is that even when I like the music, they're just… too much for Mass on a normal Sunday. I get impatient during long intros (the four chords of Mass of Creation entries is too long), and all the musical acrobatics is just too distracting.
My desire:
The Mass settings (contemporary styled as well as traditional choral/polyphonic/orchestral) that have artistic merit deserve to be sung, and I would love to see every parish and Cathedral do a regular (monthly, qrtrly) concert Mass- I think this would be edifying and wonderful and fun and good evangelism and community relations.
I'm also all for awesome settings on big feast days or for special occasions.
But for goodness sakes, can we please just chant the Ordinary on ordinary Sundays? It would be solemn, beautiful, EASIER, more relaxing, more engaging, more efficient….
AND THEN- special Mass settings would actually be special and different. Feast days would be more Feastly (by comparison) and there would be more time and energy to focus on whatever else requires choral attention (Propers, Hymns, Special music, your concert Masses, bongo drum rehearsal).
By the way, I've having a blast listening to these GIA settings. I'll say no more.
"This campaign is so relentless, so petty, so pervasive that one begins to suspect an agenda …"
Well, of course, there's an agenda. It's the agenda of ars celebrandi, of improving Roman Rite liturgy, not just a different interpretation. I hope we can have competence as part of a liturgical renewal. We don't seem to be getting it from the CDWDS.
Btw, the Missalette publishers had a very happy cheery foreword about the new translation, in the quarterly missalette that started in August. They aren't sad at all, nope nope nope.
Of course, they know their sales will go up until the new pew missals come out, but still, it was cheery!
I hope we have competent pastors and liturgists who actually care what Church documents say about the sacred liturgy instead of what they think the Church documents would say if only they had been consulted.