What if we just said, 'wait'

[from the pews]

I wondered if other people had seen this on-line petition and what they thought of it.
http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/
It calls for a grassroots review of the new Roman Missal.

[Gwyn]

Welcome to the forum From The Pews.
I can't see any failsafe that ensures that signatories are baptised members of the Catholic Church.

[contrabordun]

Can't imagine why anybody who wasn't would have the remotest interest in the subject*. Most of those who are, don't.

Neither is there anything to prevent anybody signing up multiple times.

And I'm dead certain that some of the signatories have used assumed names.


*Unless you subscribe to the "Satan's hordes are out to bring the Church to its knees" baloney. (And there's nothing to stop baptised Catholics being part of Satan's hordes).

[Gwyn]

Our Blessed Lord's parable speaks of the wheat and the darnell, C.B. Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43.

[contrabordun]

Yes, but (if I get your meaning correctly) you've just reinforced my point: even were the site to require evidence of baptism and massgoing, the wheat and the darnell could still sign the petition.

[dmu3tem]

Whatever the flaws in the format and content of this petition, I am at one with their authors in expressing dismay at the introduction of the new translations. Partly it is to do with the style that has been employed (in several instances representing a retreat to more old-fashioned forms of expression compared with what we have now); but more generally I am concerned by the centralising restrictiveness (especially as regards copyright) displayed in the way it is being introduced. This affects not just texts, but music. As far as I know it is still unclear what is the exact remit of the committee of three charged with vetting all new compositions. The whole idea of having such a committee is anyway a recipe for bureaucratic delays. I also note that the new translations have less in common with English texts used in the liturgies of other denominations. This means that their introduction must be of concern (on ecumenical grounds) for Christians of all persuasions.

[presbyter]

As far as I know it is still unclear what is the exact remit of the committee of three charged with vetting all new compositions.

What committee?

[John Ainslie]

Much as I sympathise with Fr Ryan's motives, I fear that delay will generate more confusion - and more heat than light. The real devil of the piece is Liturgiam authenticam, the 2001 decree cobbled together by a clique within the Congregation for Divine Worship - even some of its own members didn't know anything about it. Unfortunately Pope John Paul II "approved this Instruction and confirmed it by his own authority".

I remember being appalled by the decree when I first read it and remarking to a colleague "it won't work". What should have happened is that episcopal conferences should have seen what would result and had the decree strangled soon after birth. Instead, they have felt obliged by holy obedience to submit to it. And since it entrusts bishops alone with the task of translation, they must bear the consequences.

The straitjacket imposed by Liturgiam authenticam is such that I cannot see anything better in prospect unless that decree is repealed. And with the rightward direction of the present Congregation, only God could make that possible.

I can foresee that the use of the new translation will affect the choices made by priests and ministers - "oh, I can't stand that prayer, we'll have the other one". I can also see priests and laity tiring very quickly of the Uriah Heepishness of "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault" and selecting Penitential Rite 3 instead. Musicians are already struggling with the uneven rhythm of the new translation of the 'Gloria' compared with the old one.

The usability of a translation surely shouldn't be the major criterion for liturgical choice, should it?

[SOP]

How "awful" would it be to have a mix of Latin and English? The mea culpa is used outside the Mass, I have heard it in meetings when someone is owning up to being at fault.

In Christmas carols we mix in phrases such as Gloria in Excelsis Deo alongside English words.

No doubt the purists will faint at the very idea but it would be a connection for those who weren't around pre Vatican II.

Just an idea.

[Psalm Project]

As a composer, I am not impressed with the new Gloria text (and others) - I am not incorporating it into new masses except in latin.
Having had much discussion about this at various meetings, I believe many of the existing settings will be retained in a lot of places for quite some time to come - like it or lump it as they say!
One gets a bit tired of hearing about the changes - then there are the new issues of copyright... more Yawn factor!
Please, God, find me a simpler life so that your praises may be extolled without getting tangled in a web of change, uncertainty and... Oh whatever!
Patience is a virtue - an attribute I am fast losing sight of!

[alan29]

The flaw in the petition is in the assumption that any notice will be taken of it. "-ing into the wind" comes to mind.
As an aside, are other major languages being subjected to this barabarity? Or is just English?

[Psalm Project]

Is it just English?
I asked about this recently as a colleague of mine in Dijon in France wishes to use some of my mass responses (in French equivalents with adaptations) - She heard me talking abut the new Missal translations over here.
I could not confirm if this was an English-only change. One cleric I asked is convinced it is an all-over change - I am not sure about that!
If Paul Inwood is looking in... France? Are the texts changing over there?

[JW]

To pick up on the point made by Presbyter, are we heading back to the situation where we had blacklists and white lists for liturgical music?

[keitha]

I think that the ship has sailed as far as the translation is concerned, and I am now at the point where I would just like us to get on with it, for good or ill.

My understanding is that (i) there is a select group of composers who have been appointed to prepare the missal tones for the new translation (I have heard them referred to as the 'gang of three'), but I have no idea who they are, and how many (and I have met no-one else who knows), and (ii) musical settings will need to have some form of imprimatur from someone, but that this relates only to the approval of the text being used and not the music.

Maybe someone who is rather nearer to the inside track than me could provide some enlightenment?

[Southern Comfort]

Some comments on the past few posts:

(1) My understanding is that all the major language groups except Spanish are having to change their translations.

(2) Various Bishops' Conferences including our own have requested modifications to the text of the English draft text of the Order of Mass (e.g. to restore "Christ has died", though the current view is that this particular request is unlikely to be granted), so it cannot yet be said that we have a final, definitive text. That will only be the case when Rome sends through a recognitio, which could be accompanied by a modified text from the present one. It appears that recognitio for this country ─ perhaps for all countries ─ is still some way off, possibly as far as May or June.

(3) No Bishops' Conference is obliged to accept the chants that ICEL is producing. They are offered to the Conferences, but each one can do its own thing if it wishes. Even if they are published in an altar missal, this doesn't necessarily mean that anyone will use them. Apart from the Preface Dialogue, we don't commonly use any of the music in the back of the current missal.

(4) Two of the three people who produced the present draft of the ICEL chants are Anthony Ruff OSB, a monk of Collegeville, and James O'Donnell, formerly Master of Music at Westminster Cathedral. One of the strictures that they worked under was apparently a kind of "Liturgiam Authenticam" approach: the English chant should be as close to the Latin chant as it can be. Over the past 45 years, we have in this country quite clearly demonstrated that this principle generally does not work well, anymore than a slavishly literal translation of texts works.

(5) Apparently there will in this country be some form of policing of new settings for musical suitability (as opposed to merely making sure that the text is adhered to, which has been the case in the USA for 14 years now). It remains to be seen how this will work in practice, given that a substantial proportion of our music now comes from overseas publishers. Those long enough in the tooth will recall the old National Music Commission, which had to approve all new mass settings back in the mid to late 60s, and certainly vetted for musical suitability. However, the volume of music coming through completely overwhelmed it, and the requirement for NMC approval quickly lapsed. The second wave of settings was not subject to any form of approval at all. Might one suspect that the same thing will happen again, especially if they have to process all the new overseas material as well? Other countries have been rumoured to be setting up similar processes for approval of musical suitability, but none seems to be up and running yet. The increasing move to web-based publishing may mean that any attempt to police what people use will be in vain in any case.

(6) Yes, there will be copyright issues. For example, apart from the one word "hosts", the Sanctus is identical to the current text, which is not subject to copyright restrictions and can be used free of charge. A good case can therefore be made for saying that ICEL have no right to claim copyright in it, let alone charge people to use it. This won't be the first time that ICEL have changed a word or two of an existing text and then tried to palm it off as their own. Sometimes they didn't even change anything ─ e.g. when they tried to copyright prayer endings such as "Through Christ our Lord. Amen".

Those who can remember the text of the Sanctus before the one we currently use will recall that the first line of that one was, as the 'new' one will be, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts" ─ and was identical to the new one apart from the second line, "Your glory fills all heaven and earth".

(7) I disagree with John Ainslie and Keith concerning the desirability of waiting. This translation has already been bulldozed through at a faster rate even than the one we use now, of which one of the major criticisms was precisely that it had been produced in a rush and therefore was less good than it could have been. It is abundantly clear that there are major failings in the new text which further consultation and work could help alleviate. Rather than trying to impose it as quickly as possible for political reasons, it seems to me that our people deserve better than this. They deserve substantial catechesis, and proper preparation, even though some of what is proposed is impossible to justify. The experience of South Africa, where the Bishops mistakenly jumped the gun and the texts have already been in use for some time and have been a cause of disunity and anger, does not bode well for us.