The Lead

America Magazine reports that attendees at conferences of the North American Academy of Liturgy and the Catholic Academy of Liturgy in San Francisco were frustrated with the way the new missal is being introduced and are displeased with the quality of the translation. In Ireland, the Association of Catholic Priests calls the missal coming online next November is sexist, archaic, elitist and obscure, and want their Bishops to send it back to Rome.

At the same time all of these groups appear resigned to the inevitability of its implementation.

America reports:

Bernadette Gasslein, editor of the Canadian liturgical periodical Celebrate!, said many liturgists are worried about the practical challenges to the missal’s implementation and acceptance. “Ritual behavior is always hard to change,” Gasslein said. “One would have thought that a congregation that deals with ritual behavior would have understood that.” Gasslein believes that a staggered, slower introduction of the new missal, such as the Australian church is planning, would have been a more pastoral approach. Instead, the new translation is scheduled to be used starting on the first Sunday of Advent (Nov. 27, 2011), a season in the liturgical calendar that typically draws the participation of “people who haven’t been to Mass since last Easter.”
One measure of the level of the disquiet among liturgists is a recent open letter to U.S. bishops from Anthony Ruff, O.S.B. Father Ruff has decided to withdraw from speaking engagements at eight dioceses around the United States intended to help promote the new missal. In his letter, he said that it is something he no longer can agree to “with integrity.” Father Ruff wrote, “I’m sure bishops want a speaker who can put the new missal in a positive light, and that would require me to say things I do not believe.” He submitted the letter with the permission of his Benedictine superiors.

Father Ruff, who teaches theology at St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minn., served as chairman of I.C.E.L.’s music committee. “My involvement in that process,” he wrote, “as well as my observation of the Holy See’s handling of scandal, has gradually opened my eyes to the deep problems in the structures of authority of our church.

“The forthcoming missal is but a part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger church,” Father Ruff wrote. “When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority…and then when I think of Our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity…I weep.”

The Irish Times says:

[The Association of Catholic Priests] has called on the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference not to introduce the third edition of The Roman Missal until it has consulted with priests and laity. The conference has said, however, that the new missal is “set in stone”.
Thousands of changes have been made to the current missal, the association said at a press conference yesterday. And the language used, a more literal translation of the Latin missal, is not in keeping with the “natural rhythm, cadence and syntax” of English.

“The association is gravely concerned that this literal translation from Latin has produced texts that are archaic, elitist and obscure,” the association said.

“Many women will be rightly enraged at the deliberate use of non-inclusive language.” The new translation perpetuated an “exclusivist, sexist language”, it said....

...Theologian Fr Dermot Lane highlighted a change in words used at consecration which currently state Jesus died “for you and for all”, but have been changed to “for you and for many”. The shift implies “Christ was for some, not all”, he said.

The German hierarchy had rejected a new version sent to them and “Rome accepted that”, Fr Lane said; the Irish hierarchy could do the same.

Not likely. Both America and The Irish Times report that for all intents and purposes the new translation is "set in stone" and the Irish Bishops have chided the priests for complaining about the book before it was published.

Comments (10)

“The forthcoming missal is but a part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger church...”

I hate to point out what seems obvious, but from what I know of it, the Roman Catholic Church is rigidly hierarchical and is designed to be "top-down"! If one vests final and absolute authority in the Pope, how can one then complain about being imposed upon by a "central authority"?

I'm always a little surprised that people within the Roman Catholic Church are surprised when the church actually functions the way it was designed to function. If you want a church that involves all four orders of ministry (laity, bishop, priest, and deacon) in its decisions and deliberations, we provide an alternative....

Posted by Tom Sramek Jr | February 4, 2011 11:08 PM

From our Episcopalian, know-why-Henry&Elizabeth-said-No, perspective, it's easy to look at RCs who run into problems, and be surprised at their surprise.

But most faithful RCs live (or did live) at the level of their parish. As long as their priest wasn't a Hammer-of-the-Magisterium type, Rome and it's uber-"centralizing" tendencies was a long, LONG ways away.

Sadly, the last 20 years have shown the Vatican to be reaching out, sniffing out the faintest dissent (even as their policies, as their liturgies, become more restrictive!).

The old "Pax Romana" faithful RCs knew is being dismantled: may we Episcopalians be there to welcome them in this painful time.

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux | February 4, 2011 11:32 PM

I'm watching an EWTN program on the New Translation and, as is usual on EWTN, it's Oh So Revealing.

The reversion to "And with your spirit" (as response to "The Lord Be With You", instead of the former/'79 BCP "And also with you") was done to specifically note/honor the "charismatic spirit of the PRIEST" [The announcer on the show cited Moses calling of the 70, "to help him RULE over the people"]

Got it, RC faithful? The Vatican wants you giving more deference to your priests! [I predict mandatory Ad Orientem is returning next]

Posted by tgflux | February 5, 2011 3:41 AM

I don't doubt that there will be folks on other blogs (the ones who wouldn't be caught dead reading the Episcopal Cafe, and whose blogs most of us wouldn't be caught reading) who will say, well, what's the fuss, after all TEC stuffed This Godawful New Prayer Book down our throats. Well, I'm a Old Guy, and I Was There. I remember, and implemented in my parish, the first trial Liturgy of the Lord's Supper. I implemented trials of the Green Book and the Zebra Book. I contributed a number of comments to the Standing Liturgical Commission, and some of them were adopted (not just because of my comments, but because I suspect many people made similar comments). We received the 1979 Prayer Book with great joy and gratitude -- it was, for the most part, what we hoped it would be. Liturgical revision in the Episcopal Church has not been without some rough spots, but it has been an open process that welcomes the participation of the whole church. ("Liturgy" doesn't actually quite mean "the people's work," but close enough.) Those of us who remember the Second Vatican Council grieve for the smashed hopes regarding our Holy Roman Sister, who seems at every turn to be determined to Get It Wrong.

Posted by Bill Moorhead | February 5, 2011 10:48 AM

JCF, it is good to recall, however, that the Latin name for the opposite of Ad orientem is Versus populum! Facing the people can be even more domineering than humbly turning to join them facing the same way as they are. Much depends on attitude (physical and mental).

Posted by tobias haller | February 5, 2011 10:59 AM

Heh: I almost added (to my post above) "Fr Haller will respond in 3, 2, 1..."

It was for you, Tobias, that I specifically added "mandatory" to Ad Orientem. You know how I feel about it (what w/ my threat to climb onto your tabernacle, *LOL*), but I would never make Facing-the-People ("Versus" having a different meaning, in English versus Latin! ;-/) mandatory either. Pax.

Posted by tgflux | February 5, 2011 5:59 PM

"I hate to point out what seems obvious, but from what I know of it, the Roman Catholic Church is rigidly hierarchical and is designed to be "top-down"!"

The problem with this idea and the new missal translation is that Vatican II seems to have given bishops the last say on the translations for their areas, but in this case, the Vatican is retranslating their translation.

Posted by crystal watson | February 6, 2011 4:13 PM

My experience of reading Anglican and RC and EO liturgical explanations shows that even the most mundane and obvious text can be assigned some arbitrary and mystical meaning, so I'm hardly surprised that someone on ETWN can come up with such a rationalization for what is more obviously a matter of a more literal translation. Meanwhile Fr. Lane seems obtuse to the truth that "for all" is an inaccurate translation of "pro multis" and that even the slacker Anglicans have "for many" at that point, most likely I imagine because that's what it says in the Greek.

Posted by C. Wingate | February 7, 2011 12:13 AM

No translation of the Roman Missal will be perfect. Please do take a look at the work yourself. Frankly, I find its match to the Latin text and the parts of the liturgy that are lifted from Sacred Scripture to be much more accurate. How wonderful that the Church has taken the time to put this new translation together.

Also, I find the introduction of the changes to be more than adequate. We have been having "New Roman Missal" classes in my archdiocese for months now, and the formal change doesn't occur until this November.

PDAC - please sign your name next time you comment - thanks. ~ed.

Posted by PDAC | March 12, 2011 8:07 PM

I just attended my first Episcopal service, an adult funeral. As a practicing Roman Catholic (including a lector/reader and choir member) I obviously found myself quite comfortable with the service. Even the female rector who officiated did not overly concern me. My big question afterwards was wondering if, with the changes to the Roman Missal, would the Episcopal Church be changing any of their liturgical language? Just curious. I don't have a huge problem with the new language but some of it is awkward. Thank you.

Posted by Danalee Lavelle | July 9, 2011 7:40 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations