Get this…
English missal expected in 2009
The Vatican’s Vox Clara Committee has announced that the new English translation of the Roman missal is expected to be ready by the end of 2009.
This follows a meeting in Rome over the past few days, under the chairmanship of Sydney’s Cardinal George Pell.
Catholic News Service reports that Vox Clara Committee hopes missal translation completed by 2009 it was the first time they have set a specific date.
The third edition of the Roman Missal was promulgated in Latin by Pope John Paul II in 2002. Work on the English translation began soon afterwards.
A Vox Clara statement said its meeting reviewed the most recent draft translations of the Roman Missal. These were produced in English by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, or ICEL, which is preparing the translation in several sections.
The material includes Masses for various needs and intentions, as well as ritual Masses and the eucharistic prayers for Masses with children.
The committee’s next meeting is scheduled for December.
SOURCE
Vox Clara Committee hopes missal translation completed by 2009 (Catholic News, 11/9/07)
The Vatican’s Vox Clara Committee has announced that the new English translation of the Roman missal is expected to be ready by the end of 2009.
Is Card. Pell praying? Or throwing up his hands in frustration at the ugly language and the unreasonable delay?
Loading ...
If this means the translation itself (of the 2002 Missale Romanum) will not be “ready” until the end of 2009, then might it follow that bounded and printed copies of hand missals might not actually be seen in the pews until 2010 or 2011?
And surely the reform-of-the-reform “missal of Benedict XVI” — with its inserted offertory and (hopefully) excised canons, perhaps — will be on the horizon by then, delaying the appearance of stable missals even further?
The article states: “The third edition of the Roman Missal was promulgated in Latin by Pope John Paul II in 2002. Work on the English translation began soon afterwards.”
In fact, work on the revised translation began in the early 1980s. I have reports from ICEL in my library dating back to 1988. The work not only includes the Order of Mass itself, but hundreds of orations (collects, secrets, postcommunion prayers). The former was the source of much contention due to the onset of “inclusive language” and assorted “adaptations,” such as various options for altering the Introductory Rites that would have not appeared in the Latin original. Such departure from the straight and narrow was stopped with the general liturgical house-cleaning of the past decade, and the reorganization of ICEL on Rome’s orders. Much of the work on the orations that was done in the 80s and 90s was, at the very least, noticably improved over the current text. The order of mass itself is another matter. The latest draft of the ordo was being circulated on the internet this past year, until the parties involved were asked to stop. Because the work is more discreet than in the past, I have little knowledge on how the body of heretofore revised orations passed muster.
Personally, I believe we will be lucky to see a final text before 2010, and that it will be at least two years after that before the publishing industry in the English-speaking world can release new editions. You can expect one last stiff resistance to the change, but eventually there will be no getting around it. The presence of more “courtly” language in vernacular worship will, by itself, be a positive influence on the state of parish worship, even for those who never celebrate a Latin mass.
I had heard, somewhat relatedly, that the Vatican Press is preparing to reprint the typical edition of the 1962 Missale Romanum. I wonder if that will happen soon, too.
Father Zuhlsdorf: do you know if the translation project also extends to the small “Masses in Honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary” sacramentary (the blue volume)? I’m not sure if it would fall under the category of “Masses for Various Needs and Intentions” in the material that they have worked on.
I ask because I wanted to ask for one as a gift for my ordination next spring, but if it is going to be changing, I’ll just wait. Thanks.
Anonymous Deacon:
To answer your question (unless Father Z knows something I don’t): this concerns the ENTIRE Sacramentary of the Roman Missal. All of it.
One might hope that by the time they’re done, all Novus Ordo Masses will be in Latin.
Is it possible the Ordinary will be in use before that time?
I’ve read, and I believe Cardinal Pell said this if I remember correctly, that the goal was for the Holy Father to use the new translation for the first time at WYD in Sydney next summer.
Are there any bishop’s conferences that have determined to implement the Ordinary before the Propers are ready?
This report is just cribbing from the CNS story. A few important quotes from the original CNS story:
After meeting at the Vatican Sept. 2-6, the Vox Clara Committee said it hoped the English translation of the Roman Missal would be completed and approved by the end of 2009.
It was the first time a specific date had been anticipated for the completion of the lengthy project. The third edition of the Roman Missal was promulgated in Latin by Pope John Paul II in 2002, and work on the English translation began soon afterward.
A Vox Clara statement said its meeting reviewed the most recent draft translations of the Roman Missal, as produced in English by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, or ICEL, which is preparing the translation in several sections.
The material included Masses for various needs and intentions, ritual Masses, and the eucharistic prayers for Masses with children.
“The members found the texts to be excellent, although suggestions were made for ways in which the choice of alternate words or phrases could render a few sections more faithful to the Latin original or easier to proclaim and comprehend,” the statement said.
It said the final draft translation for the missal should be published by next spring [i.e. 2008]. Then ICEL will complete a second draft, taking into account the reactions of English-language bishops’ conferences and the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.
After that, the bishops’ conferences vote on the second draft. The Vatican’s worship and sacraments congregation then takes final action, considering any eventual amendments that are proposed by bishops’ conferences.
Church sources said that, in the end, most experts expect the Vatican to come up with a single, consensus version of the missal to serve the entire English-speaking world.
That’s about the bluest green vestment I’ve ever seen.
One might hope that by the time they’re done, all Novus Ordo Masses will be in Latin.
[Hmm. I keep thinking that I am the only one with that hope.]
At any rate, thanks for passing along this most important information. This is our deadline for producing new versions of hymnals and “hymnals” that contain or purport to contain official English texts.
In Philadelphia, we call that one “midnight green.”
It seems it will be more than the priest who will need
retrain himself/herself. From what I’ve read so far,
many of the changes will be in the responses of the
congregation. I don’t think it’s going to be easy to
get them to reply “and with your spirit” after forty
years of “and also with you” conditioning. But then
again, I might be pleasantly surprised to find them
all attending the Extraordinary Form in a couple of
years.
When this comes out the uproar and hysteria will be such that people won’t even remember Summarum Pontificum.
If the Masses were mostly done in Latin, the issue of translating (and re-translating) would be a non-issue. The Latin is not being altered one bit. If people were used to a Latin Novus Ordo, there would be more stability and less re-adaptation to a new translation.
I doubt we’ll see anything quite so radical. Ratzinger in The Feast of Faith:
Besides which, excising the new EPs would cause uproar.
Failing to excise the new EPs – which no priest is obliged to use – need not preclude the INclusion of the 1962 Offertory as an option. Personally I believe this is not only possible but quite likely, assuming the Benedictine Papacy lasts a few years.
Where can I find out more about this rumored Benedictine missal?
Perhaps the delay is timed to coincide with the
retirement of some of the most vocal opponents of the
new translation such as Bishop Trautman. The newer
episcopal appointees appear far more traditionial in
terms of liturgy. So perhaps a little foot dragging
here makes sense because we will have a more receptive
episcopate by then. Tom
I’ve gotta agree with TJM above… I think the timing is something of a delay tactic to wait for a Bishop’s Committee that will be more open to some of the changes. I believe that this is the reason for the delay in the response to the Bishop’s “Directoy for Music and the Liturgy” as well… the incoming Chair of the BCL was not supportive of the path that was chosen for this document by Bishop Trautmann, and when the message is sent back that the recognitio is declined due to failure to follow the instructions of Liturgiam Authenticam (as was the recognitio for the translation of some parts of the Missale… remember the scathing letter from Cardinal Arinze?) then the needed changes can be made without having a “floor fight” with Bishop Trautmann. I am salivating at the thought of this document being kicked back to he BCL this Fall…..
Just a joke
Lets use the Missale Romanum until the english
translation is avalilable. Perhaps it may be
possible to suggest transitional deacons to
get it as an ordination gift!
I am disappointed that all of the other Eucharistic Prayers (other than I-IV, i.e. Mass for Children) will still be there.
I have been following the new English translation issue for several years now. I’ve been hoping and praying for its swift approval and implementation. But the latest Vox Clara meeting report just seems like a lot more bureaucratic foot dragging. First, major project deadlines more than a few months rarely make their completion dates. Even if the end of 2009 is met, years worth of delays can be rationalized for writing music, printing missals, training, etc. If the project drags on and on there is the possibility that the whole thing gets overcome by events. By then who knows, maybe a whole new Roman Missal project might be started or God forbid, our current Holy Father passes away and a new Pope shelves the project.
Why can’t the ordinary of the Mass be implemented without the propers? Why can’t the new rendering of “Pro Multis†as “For Many†be implemented immediately? That doesn’t involve the people. The priest only has to change one word. I don’t think it took so long to go from “For All Men†to “For Allâ€.
I can’t see what has taken so long in the first place. Since this new English translation is in large part going back to what was in the 1965 and 1967 transitional Missals, a lot of the work should already have been done and available. I realize some parts of the new Mass have to have been done from scratch, but that should be a relatively small part.
Since the Church is about the salvation of souls, , as the years tick by, how many souls will not live to hear a faithful translation of the Roman Missal (at least in the ordinary form). I’m only 46 and I’m hoping I live to hear it. Even if it does eventually make it, what discipline will be used to ensure priests use the new translation faithfully? A lot paraphrase the Mass now to where the words from the Missal are unrecognizable.
I have been following the new English translation issue for several years now. I’ve been hoping and praying for its swift approval and implementation. But the latest Vox Clara meeting report just seems like a lot more bureaucratic foot dragging. First, major project deadlines more than a few months rarely make their completion dates. Even if the end of 2009 is met, years worth of delays can be rationalized for writing music, printing missals, training, etc. If the project drags on and on there is the possibility that the whole thing gets overcome by events. By then who knows, maybe a whole new Roman Missal project might be started or God forbid, our current Holy Father passes away and a new Pope shelves the project.
Why can’t the ordinary of the Mass be implemented without the propers? Why can’t the new rendering of “Pro Multis†as “For Many†be implemented immediately? That doesn’t involve the people. The priest only has to change one word. I don’t think it took so long to go from “For All Men†to “For Allâ€.
I can’t see what has taken so long in the first place. Since this new English translation is in large part going back to what was in the 1965 and 1967 transitional Missals, a lot of the work should already have been done and available. I realize some parts of the new Mass have to have been done from scratch, but that should be a relatively small part.
Since the Church is about the salvation of souls, as the years tick by, how many souls will not live to hear a faithful translation of the Roman Missal (at least in the ordinary form). I’m only 46 and I’m hoping I live to hear it. Even if it does eventually make it, what discipline will be used to ensure priests use the new translation faithfully? A lot paraphrase the Mass now to where the words from the Missal are unrecognizable.
It is just more foot-dragging. On the other hand, when it comes through, the N.O. translation we have now will be withdrawn–superceded completely. So it might be a good thing after the Motu Proprio to let a little time pass. The missal of 1970 is going to go away—finally!
Jim R asked: Why can’t the ordinary of the Mass be implemented without the propers? Why can’t the new rendering of “Pro Multis†as “For Many†be implemented immediately?
Of course they can all be implemented immediately. But the Church has decided not to do it. That’s how the liturgy was reformed in the 1960s: this changed, then that changed, then another change was announced, all within a few years. If we change the translation incrementally, it could recreate the unsettling sense that the liturgy is a malleable thing constantly in flux. Of course, probably most people already have that sense, but I think a stream of incremental changes would strengthen that sense, and would feed a storm of liturgical controversy. I think Rome wants the English-speaking Church to just get accustomed to the fact that the English translation is about to change very noticeably, and then to just do it all at once when the Missal translation has been completed, like yanking off the bandage in one swift movement.
Or so it seems to me . . .
Jordan Potter writes:
I think Rome wants the English-speaking Church to just get accustomed to the fact that the English translation is about to change very noticeably
One wonders whether it might be less painful if an individual priest could choose to use either the draft translation or the existing
interpretationtranslation.Of course, by 2009 we might have a whole new edition of the ordinary use Missal. New editions of the ordinary use Missal (first published in 1970) were published in 1975 and 2000. So it would not be surprising if there were a fourth edition of the New Missal in 2009 even if one weren’t hearing certain rumors about it.