Here is the interim solution to the embarrassing situation created by the new liturgical translations: http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2011/11/liturgical-resource-for-celebrants/

I think that if celebrants use common sense they may irk the temple police but they will ultimately earn the gratitude of bishops, who cannot relish being a laughing stock, with even Steve Colbert and his audiences giggling at them.

Comments

[Gene O'Grady]

I looked at the discussion of this issue on NCR but gave up when one of the defenders of the new liturgy (I hereby ban the word translation as irrelevant) informed me that tuo was third person plural.

Seems to me that the real issue is some restoration of traditional Catholic intellectual life after the disastrous, self-indulgent catastrophe of the Montini-Wojtyla reigns.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

A priest simply cannot read a text he sees to be bad and spiritually deleterious. It is even forbidden by Canon Law, of which the first principle is Salus animarum suprema lex. The bishops have dropped the ball on this, failing to examine the texts with due rigor. Celebrants and congregations can be relied on to find practical solutions to the artificially created dilemma.

[GD]

Gene, your comment reminds me of the young priest who was corrected for pronouncing cirCUMdabo as circumDAbo. "Oh", he said, "I thought it was ablative!"

[me]

I have noticed that you tend to only care about the populas dei when they happen to agree with you. The reality is that the populas dei has little regard for eithe the new translation or the old. There is not mass dislike of the new translation. Where is the revolt? Where are the streams of faithful leaving the church? There are as many who love the new translation as there are those who love the old. The majority is simply indifferent.

So you should not use this as an excuse to follow your own whims.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

me, your sociological observation on the reaction of the populus dei to the new translations is staggering! At least you do not pretend, as its defenders do, that the new translation is being enthusiastically greeted.

To my ears the new trans is the sheerest dreck, and as such is unlikely ever to be loved by priests or people. It is transparently the product of a power-play by a Vatican clique led by the late Medina, Pinochet’s buddy, and the fatuous Pell, and when people see this they naturally become angry. Under duress, priests and laity, who are made victims of this naked abuse, must recite rubbish which is utterly unworthy of the Catholic liturgy and an insult to the God we worship. The English of the new translation has no stylistic merit, though its besotted begetters believe they are following in the footsteps of the greatest English stylist (Newman). Worse, it is crawling with incorrect English, such as “we acclaim: ‘Holy, Holy’”. It is often too obscure to be accurate, and is sometimes plainly inaccurate. Its changes in the Eucharistic Prayers are all in the direction of a soul-destroying drippiness. The collects, etc. are constipated — whereas the 1998 translations were excellent on that front. The new translations are nothing less than a major scandal. The stink will continue to rise because it comes not from subjective perceptions or ideological investments but from the rotten quality of the language itself, which reveals not only the philistinism of the perpetrators, but their spiritual and moral mediocrity. Noisome and nauseous, the new language is poisoning the spiritual lives of the people of God. This disastrous experiment must be ended at once. But it will linger for some months or years, producing no good effects on the morale of worshippers, but rather insidiously eating away at their conviction. The best you can say is that the populus dei cares nothing for either translation and know nothing of the possibilities of better that have been suppressed. But this zombification of the populus dei is an utterly unwholesome situation, which largely explains the depletion of Catholic ranks. Have you any positive proposal to make?

[me]

You write, "The best you can say is that the populus dei cares nothing for either translation and know nothing of the possibilities of better that have been suppressed."

This was not the point that I made. My point was that some will find it troubling, and equal number will find it spiritually satisfying, and the rest do not really care. So for intellectual honesty you should stop using the populus Dei argument.

Almost all the criticisms that you have made concerning the new translation can justly be laid at the feet of the old translation. It had little stylistic merit (it reads as if it was written for a third grader), contained drippiness, often plainly inaccurate, and was poorly translated. And yet you were not up in arms over the last translation which suffered from the same basic faults even if they were manifested with a tendency in a different direction. This makes your criticism look as if it ideologically driven.

You language is completely over the top. References to Pinochet have nothing to do with the issue. Or suggesting that the translation is "producing no good effects" is simply not true. I have personally seen already that some have had a spiritual and liturgical revival. The new translation at least made them think about something that had largely become a matter of rote. This is a good effect and I am not denying that in some the opposite is happening.

This translation is not going to destroy the spiritual lives of the faithful for Pete sake.

My suggestion is that we accept what we are given and make the best of it as we have had to do for the last 40 years.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

My reference to Pinochet is historically factual; have you read Bishop Maurice Taylor on this?

You have found examples of "spiritual and liturgical revival" due to the new translation? Well, please make this known. I agree that there is the good effect of making people think and even of prompting celebrants to react by doing what they should have done all along: seek more creative liturgy. But of course that is not what the perpetrators of the new trans had in mind.

"You were not up in arms over the last translation which suffered from the same basic faults even if they were manifested with a tendency in a different direction." Compare the 1973 version of the Roman Canon with the new version and I think you will see that this is not at all true.
"Some will find it troubling, an equal number will find it spiritually satisfying, and the rest do not really care" -- I find your "equal number" claim wishful. The New Zealand bishops found that 70 percent of their respondents were unhappy with the new translation.

[me]

First, one has to admit that the 1973 translation is terrible qua translation. The beginning of the prayer is adequate to establish this even if one thinks that it roles off the tongue. The new translation of the Roman Canon is generally more clear with respect to theology. (though not always) than RC1973. Now maybe you do not like the theology of the Roman Canon as it is contained in Latin but that is a different question.

[me]

I was not doubting the veracity of the Pinochet comment but I was wondering how it was relevant to the translation of the text. Unless you are going to assert that Pinochet assisted in the production of the text it is completely irrelevant. I suppose you could suggest that it is suggestive of a certain moral failure that then made its way into the text. I would be careful on this one unless you are sure that all the members on the original ICEL are morally clean.

First of all I do not think that New Zealand is a marker for the english speaking world especially since the population of NZ is merely that of Catholics in the archdioces of Los Angeles. Moreover, your claim is only that 70 percent of the "respondants" to the bishops found it problematic. What kind of study was this? Would it meet academic standards? Doubtful. If you have evidence (concerning the NZ smaple) to the contrary please make it known.

"Well, please make this known. I agree that there is the good effect of making people think and even of prompting celebrants to react by doing what they should have done all along: seek more creative liturgy. But of course that is not what the perpetrators of the new trans had in mind."

I happen to know a couple of the translators and I can tell you that they did have this mind.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

How defensive: "Moreover, your claim is only that 70 percent of the "respondants" to the bishops found it problematic. What kind of study was this? Would it meet academic standards?"

Why would bishops want to admit that 70% of their faithful dislike a translation for which they, the bishops themselves, will be held responsible? Bishop Campbell of Dunedin remarks that 83% of the comments he received were negative: http://content.yudu.com/A1ty40/TheTablet/resources/13.htm

As to Pinochet, yes, the moral failures of Pinochet's favorite bishop are at the root of the current translation mess. You will find Bp Taylor's account of Medina's dictatorial treatment of the old ICEL at the praytellblog.com site.

The 1973 translation of the Roman Canon was justified line by line both stylistically and theologically in a booklet published by the translators. I have recited the Roman Canon in this translation many times and always found it to be satisfying on both fronts. When I have celebrated the Mass in Latin I have mostly used the Roman Canon. The new translation of the Roman Canon is just horrible.

Intriguing that you know some of the translators and that they actually want their text to provoke a critical and creative reaction. That clashes with the emphasis on the new texts as a sort of obedience test -- "say the black, do the red" -- among many defenders of the new trans.

[shane]

I don't deny that Pinochet had flaws (prominent among them was his helping of Britain over Argentina in the Falklands War) but surely he was much better than the alternative? Would you rather have had a communist dictatorship? No shortage of 'progressive' bishops have sacrilegiously sucked up to communist leaders, including popes such as John XXIII (who scandalously prohibited Vatican II from condemning communism) and Paul VI (who endlessly harangued Franco for his [just] executions of separatist terrorists while completely ignoring the savage persecution of Catholics living under the Soviet yoke).

[Spirit of Vatican II]

The democratically elected and peacefully governing Salvator Allende faced such suspicions as you voice, in the context of the Cold War paranoia of that time. He replied, shortly before his death: "Chilean democracy is a conquest by all of the people. It is neither the work nor the gift of the exploiting classes, and it will be defended by those who, with sacrifices accumulated over generations, have imposed it. With a tranquil conscience I sustain that never before has Chile had a more democratic government than that over which I have the honor to preside."

[Shane]

Spirit, Marxists are masters at propaganda. The quote you give us is a fine example. The term 'exploiting classes' conjures up images of privileged aristocrats attended by butlers and fine champange but in fact it is a nasty and dehumanising Marxist slur for the bourgeoisie. To 'exploit' in the Marxist sense differs widely from the conventional interpretation. As Fr John Meaghar points out here (http://lxoa.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/marx-the-man.pdf ), "'Exploitation' is a word which gained great currency as a result of Marx's harping on it and Marxists have not ceased to exploit the word 'exploitation' since. To exploit, in its most commonly accepted sense, means to use another person for one's own ends and so is a morally reprehensible practice but for Marx it was merely a process in the working out of the world's history. Never was an ambiguity so brutally misused in the interests of delusion."

Moreover the statement you quote contradicts itself. How can Chilean democracy be "a conquest by all of the people" but not the "exploiting classes" (ie. those who own the means of production). It's also arrogant in that it's based on the premise that working class people are instinctively Marxist or agree with his position.

Allende was an avowed communist and his regime won only a minority of votes, so the Chilean people gave no mandate for his policy. The military intervention was legitimate and was supported by parties who collectively represented a majority of the electorate, just as justified as the earlier Spanish one that removed that vile regime that defiled Spain from 1931 until 1939.

[Shane]

See this resolution from 1973 of Chile’s Chamber of Deputies which approved this text by 81 votes against 47. It details Allende's steering Chile into communist totalitarianism and his contempt for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. (He ignored or failed to enforce over 7,000 Chilean Supreme Court and other legislative rulings.)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Breakdown_of_Chile%27s_Democracy

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Would you also deny US involvement in the coup of Sept 11, 1973?

Nixon: Nothing new of any importance or is there?
Kissinger: Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.
Nixon: Isn't that something. Isn't that something.
Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes.
Nixon: Well we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one though.
Kissinger: We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [garbled] created the conditions as great as possible.
Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

The quaint 1948 pamphlet by Fr Meagher is far, far from being an adequate response to the genius of Marx, whose analyses and questions still have great relevance in our epoch of late capitalism.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Do you consider dictators a necessary evil, or do you regard them as a positive good?