Question on new translation of the Mass

[KatS]

[quote]why is the music director of a catholic church notcatholic?

muahahahha... chant it is!! [/quote]

I second that question.

Chant is way cooler!

[p0lar_bear]

FYI: the latest newsletter from the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy lists the adaptations to the ICEL translation that were voted in at the latest meeting.

[azaelia]

It's going to be interesting to see how everyone transitions to the new trnaslations considering about 80% of the congregations don't even pay attention to what they're reciting now...interesting indeed.

[Tindomiel]

Are any of the responses changing at all?

[p0lar_bear]

Yes, as are parts of the creed.

[Tindomiel]

Wow, that's awesome! Well, people should at least notice that. If anything it could be rather jarring to say something different from the "routine" words.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

My dad told me that he likes the NO better than the Tridentine Mass because he never knew what he was saying... I still don't think a lot of people know what they are saying!

[ThyWillBeDone]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1007717' date='Jun 18 2006, 12:00 PM']
what's interesting to me in all of this is the music side of this. we have huge books of music for the Mass written for the way the norvus ordo is NOW. what happens when they change the acclamation? do we go back to speaking everything? does this mean CHANT? something is going to have to be done about music... and fast.

[/quote]


I wish we would go back to chanting more maybe even use the antiphons , but I am sure we won't have to because Marty Haugen and David Haas will have some [i]wonderful[/i] *sarcasm* new music for us in no time at all.
God Bless

[rkwright]

So has anyone been to a mass thats uses the new adaptations? I'm with Cam on this one also (look at his question over at the q\a board). The new changes are welcome, but the problem wasn't just the translation, half of it was the priest wandering from the GIRM version of the mass. Again I'm excited about the new translation, but lets see it actually being used properly.

[p0lar_bear]

^ The translation, with the American adaptations, still has to be approved by Rome. Assuming everything goes fine with that, they will then have to actually produce all the next texts. It will probably be at least a year before these changes go into effect.

[phatcatholic]

the USCCB moves slow. i'll be SHOCKED if it only takes a year.....

[p0lar_bear]

It will probably take more than a year...I was being optimistic.

Though I will defend the USCCB a bit. It will probably take some time for Rome to get through everything and approve the adaptations. If they don't approve all of them then everything gets slowed down.... Even if there are no delays, they still need time to compile and edit everything for the new Sacramentary and other liturgical books (they'll want to put all the new ones out at around the same time). Then they have to give liturgical publishers time to compile and print new guides (like the ones in the pews for the congregation), diocese and parishes time to get the books, re-train the priests, and catechize the faithful. Even with no delays and a rush on things, it would probably take at least a year to get it done.

[phatcatholic]

hey, can you post that list of adaptations that you mentioned?

[p0lar_bear]

I'll have to see if I can borrow the newsletter over the weekend so I have time to type it out.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' post='1014027' date='Jun 28 2006, 04:01 PM']
I'll have to see if I can borrow the newsletter over the weekend so I have time to type it out.
[/quote]
did u get the newsletter?

also, i wanted to share a new article on this topic:


[b]The Language of Prayer[/b]
[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0837.htm"]http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0837.htm[/url]
[i]by Michael P. Foley[/i]

Last week the U.S. Catholic bishops overwhelmingly approved changes to the wording of the Mass that will significantly affect how Roman Catholics pray. Instead of an expected split vote, the bishops deliberated for only 20 minutes before deciding 173-23 in favor of a new English translation of the Latin Order of the Mass.

The bishops' decision follows decades of displeasure with the current English translation. Drafted in 1970 by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy and in use ever since, the translation has been criticized as banal, uninspiring and inaccurate (one fastidious Latinist counted over 400 errors in the ordinary parts of the Mass alone). A rather straightforward response such as "and with your spirit" (et cum spiritu tuo) was rendered, "and also with you," while entire phrases were omitted or even inserted. In the Roman canon, for example, "a pure Victim . . . a spotless Victim" was ignored and "We come to you Father with praise and thanksgiving" added, the effect being that even the holiest part of the Mass seems more focused on us than on the Sacrifice.

It is difficult to believe that these errors were not intentional (no other translation — Spanish, German, Italian — has had such extensive problems), and indeed, according to some insiders, the committee's decisions were ideologically driven. The Rev. Stephen Somerville, one of the original members of ICEL's Advisory Board, apologized in 2002 for "the bold mistranslations" that "weaken[ed] the Latin Catholic liturgy."

Other former ICEL members have been less contrite. After the Vatican began to address the problem in 2001 with Liturgiam authenticam, its document on the principles of sound translation, Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk direly prognosticated a "liturgical winter." John Page, a former executive secretary of ICEL, criticized the new procedures for not bringing "the wider Church into the conversation," a curious remark given ICEL's own notoriety for ignoring decades of complaints from pleb and prelate alike.

Today opponents of the new translation cite concern over the effects the changes will have on congregations, which have grown accustomed to ICEL's old renderings. While change can certainly be destabilizing, there is a difference between changing in order to move away from tradition and changing in order to return to it. And it is odd for those who pushed for a radical shift in 1970 to be now making the same arguments about continuity their detractors once did.

The current controversy is also interesting because it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding over the nature of liturgical language. The Rev. Lawrence J. Madden, director of the Georgetown Center for Liturgy, dislikes the new and more accurate translation because "It isn't the English we speak. It's becoming more sacred English, rather than vernacular English."

Yet that is precisely the point. When Vatican II permitted translations of the Mass in 1963, it spoke of translating into the "mother tongue," not into everyday speech. Contrary to widespread belief, there has never been a tradition of the vernacular in Christian liturgy, if by "vernacular" you mean the language we speak on the street. Many of the earliest Masses were offered in a language the congregation could understand, but not in the language that could be heard in the marketplace. Before a native language was used in divine worship, it was first "sacralized" — its syntax and diction were gingerly modified, archaisms were deliberately re-introduced and even new rhythmic meters and cadences were invented. All of this was done in order to produce a distinctive mode of communication, one that was separate from garden-variety vernacular speech and capable of relaying the unique mysteries of the Gospel.

Thus, if English is to convey sacred mysteries, there should be a "sacred English." The very word we use for everyday speech, "profane," comes from pro-fano, "outside the temple." If Catholics wish to make the world Christ's temple, as Pope Benedict recently put it, they must first be careful not to make Christ's temple the world.

While the bishops made important progress last week, their improvements fell short of the ideal. Approximately 60 of the proposed changes were rejected, we are told, including the recommendation to replace the nebulous line in the Nicene Creed "one in being with the Father" with the more precise "consubstantial with the Father." According to one report the bishops kept the former version because "'consubstantial' is a theological expression requiring explanation." Quite so, but isn't explaining theological expressions one of the reasons we have priests and bishops?
Since the process is far from over (it could take years before final implementation), Rome may yet prevail in convincing the American liturgical establishment to leave more of its street talk at the temple door. In the meantime, Catholics jaded with all this tinkering to the Mass can be grateful that at least some changes are for the better.


[b]ACKNOWLEDGEMENT[/b]

Michael P. Foley. "The Language of Prayer." Wall Street Journal (June 23, 2006).

This article is reprinted with permission from The Wall Street Journal © 2006 Dow Jones & Company and from the author, Michael P. Foley. All rights reserved.

[b]THE AUTHOR[/b]

Michael P. Foley is a professor of patristics at Baylor University and the author of [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403969671/ref=nosim/catholiceduca-20"][b][i]Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?: The Catholic Origins of Just About Everything[/i][/b][/url] (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).

Copyright © 2006 [url="http://www.opinionjournal.com/"][b]Wall Street Journal[/b][/url]