English Missal translation PHILIP ENDEAN
Sense and sensitivities
With little more than six months to go before the introduction of the new English translation of the Mass, the voices of dissent and concern continue to grow. Here, a liturgical scholar argues that, if the Missal is to be accepted with conviction, it is vital that its supporters make their voices heard
T
he last few weeks have seen some significant and high-profile com- ments about the new English translation of the Missal. Vox Clara,
initially conceived as a supervisory committee of bishops but seemingly now the dominant executive agency, met in Rome earlier this month. Its subsequent press release ended by expressing “satisfaction that the completion of the English translation of the Roman Missal has been welcomed throughout the English- speaking world”. Meanwhile, in Britain, The Catholic Herald
reported that church authorities in England and Wales “do not expect resistance to the new translation of the Roman Missal when it is introduced in September”. The acting secretary of the bishops’ liturgy commission was quoted as saying: “There are people who like it and people who don’t and some who aren’t so sure. But I think you’ll find that clergy are a fairly pragmatic group of people in the end …” Yet elsewhere there is evidence of disquiet.
Last week’s edition of The Tablet reported that Fr Anthony Ruff OSB, from St John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, until recently chairman of the music committee of the translation lead authority, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (Icel), had written to the US bishops, withdrawing from all upcoming speaking engagements on the Missal. Fr Anthony, who was in charge of preparing the chants for the new translation said: “I’m sure bishops want
FARM STREET, MAYFAIR JESUIT CHURCH
Sunday 20 February 2011 Mass Times: Vigil: Saturday 6pm
Sunday: 8am, 9.30am (Family Mass), 11am (sung Latin), Schubert, Elgar, Bach 12.30pm, 4.15pm, 6.15pm
www.farmstreet.org.uk 4 | THE TABLET | 19 February 2011
a speaker who can put the new Missal in a positive light, and that would require me to say things I do not believe …” Less publicised have been postings from
Fr Anthony on the invaluable blog that he moderates: Pray Tell (
www.praytellblog.com). He gives us a range of stories about how others in ministry have been reacting to his decision. One diocesan priest had asked his bishop some weeks back about the new translation and been told: “I think it will be a disaster.” Now that same bishop is writing in his diocesan paper that the new Missal will be a “blessing”. Fr Anthony’s overall conclusion is charac- teristically generous: “It would be too easy to accuse others of dishonesty or hypocrisy. I see, rather, highly dedicated people placed in difficult situations by the Church.” For all we know, Vox Clara’s optimism may be right, and for most Catholics there will be no great problem about using the new, unfamiliar translation. We won’t really be able to tell until it has happened; after all, we have never before attempted to change whole- sale an established translation. Moreover, although the differences of opin- ion are evident, there is no reliable way of assessing the numbers involved. But clearly some people, competent and committed peo-
ple, are troubled, including liturgical experts. Even those who most welcomed the new rules for translation imposed by the Vatican in 2001 are miffed by the extensive final revisions, undertaken unilaterally and seemingly with- out consistent rationale by Vox Clara. The Pray Tell blog contains several devas- tating analyses by one Xavier Rindfleisch (Xavier Beef, a play on the Xavier Rynne who reported anonymously on Vatican II), and readers of The Tablet will remember Fr Alan Griffiths’ dignified complaint about changes to ICEL’s translation. Fr Griffiths, who was involved in preparing resources for the reception of the new English Missal, pointed out that the 2008 translation, approved by bishops’ conferences and carried out in the spirit of Liturgiam Authenticam, the Holy See’s guidelines on translating into the vernacular, had had a wholesale revision. “It seems reasonable to ask what is going on here,” wrote Fr Griffiths. Within six weeks, he was removed from ICEL’s list of consultants. How are those committed, competent peo- ple to cope with the current situation? There seem to be three possible ways forward. If they are economically secure, they may, like Fr Anthony, withdraw from active liturgical work – not because they don’t recognise the Church’s due authority but because they know in conscience that they cannot promote the new translation with integrity. If they try, the phoniness will come through, at least sub- liminally, in ways that will help no one. Alternatively, perhaps with an eye to the source of their livelihood, they may opt out of their responsibility, put their heads down and pragmatically go through the motions, against their better judgement, of working with the new text. But what is really needed is something more positive: somehow that they find a faith conviction that the proposed new texts really represent God’s will for the Church at this time. Only this latter kind of outcome is desirable.
The first will be disruptive; the second (where probably the greatest temptation lies) is spir- itually corrosive. But this good outcome will
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40