About reported problems with the corrected English translation

You can’t imagine how many emails I have had regarding changes being made by (theoretically) the Congregation for Divine Worship to the new, corrected translation. That translation had been sent to Rome and had received an approval.

But, because Adam sinned and too many people are involved, there are now variations floating around. Confusion is building.  Gabble gabble gabble.  Blab blab blab.  This is one reason why I have been quiet.

People are reasonably curious about my opinion.  After all, I have been involved in the comparison of translations for as long as anyone out there.  Longer than most.

I have received a lot of material …too much to sift quickly, given the other things in life I really want to do.

Eventually I will address myself to this with some focus.

When I get to it, in my own time, I will do so in my own name.

If I find that I detest what is going on, I will do my best not to throw a nutty or allow a frothy squealing about it on this blog.

Until then, I can toss out some cold observations.

Some will say that regional conferences, not Rome, have the authority to prepare translations.  “The Council gave conferences the task! Wah wah wah!”

This is the same argument Bugnini pushed way back when he carried out his personal war on the Sacred Congregation for Rites (and lost), and which was echoed decades later by a certain bishop in the USCCB (and lost).

News: the Congregation, whose authority is from the Sovereign Pontiff, has the authority to make changes to the texts to whatever extent is deemed opportune by that Congregation so long as the Holy Father desires them to continue to do so.

If you are worked up about this, do please put on your big boy underwear, make yourself a nice cup of Mystic Monk Coffee, try the Jingle Bell Java, and reread Apostolos suos.

That said, ifquod Deus avertat – the Congregation makes a hash of the new translation, they will quite simply be a laughing stock.

And I welcome the folks from the Congregation reading this who are now paying much closer attention.

This is a fast communication age. Information now gets around the globe in less time than a Vatican mandarin can stir sugar into a demitasse.

For those of you in higher roles in the Roman Curia, there is something called “the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T”.  To learn more about this “internet”, stop the first 19 year-old who walks by the big open door to the piazza out there and ask him to show you his phone. If he is busy, talk to your 10 year old niece.

If the Congregation itself – or those to whom work is farmed out – make a mess of the new translation, everyone whose opinion they care about behind closed doors will hold them in derision.

Think about it: Latin might be on the ropes, but even if only a half dozen people who read Latin as well as I do start comparing their versions to the crowbar of a “slavishly literal version”,  the Congregation will lose its moral capital.

That’s not all.

Eventually the names of everyone involved will come out.

There is plenty of derision available, by the way.  Consider.

This is no longer an age in which shoddy work goes unnoticed.  Do a hatchet job on the new translation and your deeply held ideological conviction about what the translation ought to have been apart from the norms will be but cold comfort when the blogosphere and journals are done with you.

Therefore, I gently suggest everyone try to do their very best.

Another thing.  People might begin to wonder which official in the Congregation would be in a place to coordinate the grunt work and, if necessary, ward off potential embarrassments… or not.  Is it possible that someone who believes he knows better has turned this into his own project without adequate consideration for the possible contributions of others?

If the English version is goofed up – not at all certain – imagine my grief were people simply to opt for Latin because English has been shown by ecclesiastical authority yet again not to be a liturgical language.

Don’t like the changes to the new translation?

Just say NO!  Just USE LATIN!

Consider the inexorable biological solution and shifting demographics among priests and seminarians in the wealthier English speaking world.  It is in the best interests of those for whom Latin and the older Mass are the stuff of nightmares to do a good job of the English Novus Ordo.

If the translation is unsatisfactory, many of the young men being ordained will be happy to use more Latin.  People can use whatever translations they prefer.  That worked before.  It will work again.

If seminarians and priests want to write their thoughts about that last claim, send them by email and I will sort them out with anonymity preserved. [PUT “JUST USE LATIN RESPONSE” in the subject line and identify your state in life.]

But those are my thoughts for the moment.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Random Thoughts, SESSIUNCULA, The Drill, The future and our choices, WDTPRS, Wherein Fr. Z Rants. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to About reported problems with the corrected English translation

  1. kgurries says:

    Fr. Z, I was under the impression that the translations have been completed and approved — now waiting implementation. Are there still key translation decisions being made behind closed doors?

  2. “It is in the best interests of those for whom Latin and the older Mass are the stuff of nightmares to do a good job of the English Novus Ordo.”

    Great line! For us Latin lovers, it’s a win-win situation–either more Latin in the Mass or a more accurate translation of the original Latin. I personally hope for both, but until the TLM is completely restored an accurate, dignified, and reverent translation will do a lot of good for the typical English-only parish.

  3. HighMass says:

    Serveral Thoughts here…..boy Bugnini is really catching it these days…..No Judgement on him but, no lost feelings for him either. The damage that has been done!

    If the Clergy is having a difficult time with the new translation I LOVE FR.Z USE MORE LATIN! As the N.O. was intended. These folks who just can’t cope these days with the new translation should have lived through the times when the Mass of John XXIII went away and the Mass of Paul VI, was implimented. NOW that was Traumatic! Poor Progressives they aren’t getting there way so they are going down kicking and screaming…………..sorry for the sarcasm, as you have Said Fr. Z. its not them against us, or something like that………The reform of the reform is way overdue, and GOD BLESS HIM the Holy Father is doing a great job!

  4. HighMass says:

    Sorry to ramble on, as can’t type my thoughts fast enough! So if my remarks seemed scattered, Sorry about that

  5. Andy Milam says:

    What is the impotice to use the new translation again? I’m just wondering…..
    Is there a mandate that the new translation must be used? I’m just wondering….
    Is the new English translation the definitive way to celebrate the OF? I’m just wondering….

    Go figure….

  6. joanofarcfan says:

    Oh, now make mugs and shirts with: “Just say NO! Just USE LATIN!”

  7. “… because English has again been shown by ecclesiastical authority yet again not to be a liturgical language.”

    It’s not that English would been shown not to be a liturgical language. Lousy Latin doesn’t show that Latin is not a liturgical language, it just shows that Latin can be lousy, and lousy Latin isn’t good for the liturgy. The English translation is getting fouled up by somebody (or somebodies), and that doesn’t mean English cannot be a liturgical language, but that not just any English should be admitted to liturgical use.

    The changes are written about here from the perspective of a person who supports the 2008 translation. Ordinarily, I would not link to that web site, but the PDF linked to is not from them, it simply made its way into their possession.

  8. joan ellen says:

    Yes!!! Way to go Father. Thank you so very much! Hope it is ok, I am going to send out this link to my Catholic email list…Down the middle with Rome Catholics…and some SSPXers also. Yaaaaay for Catholic leadership. We need to pray harder, still, that Real Roman Catholic Latin Leadership will stand it’s ground. That’s RRCLL. Not ICEL nor PCILT.

  9. Sam Schmitt says:

    As one of the many myriads who emailed you on this issue, Fr. Z, I appreciate even your “cold observations.” Very well said.

  10. Frank H says:

    kgurries –

    The progressive-ist wing of the Catholic blogosphere has had an upset stomach about the alleged 10,000 post-recognitio changes for the last three or four months, maybe more. Google “Xavier Rindfleisch”, then grab a BIG mug of Mystic Monk java and settle in for a long evening of reading!

  11. If the issues that are being discussed in Rome are anything like those flagged in the document linked by Mr. Pinyan, they can only improve the new translation. With one exception: the use of the semi-colon in the collects is not grammatical, it is to show the break when singing the collect. Let us pray that this is left along. (In the older Latin collects the colon signaled this; one problem with the current Latin collects is that the break is *not* indicated by a punctuation mark.)

  12. ray from mn says:

    God Bless You, Father Z. This might have been your finest and most important post. You are in my prayers.

  13. Henry Edwards says:

    Regarding Jeffrey Pinyan’s comment above, the “2008 translation” is the one that the bishops conferences approved and submitted to the Vatican. The article he links alleges that “countless errors” of one sort or another have been introduced in a subsequent in-house Vatican revision (the alleged “2010 translation”).

    Scathing report on missal translations sent to bishops

    “NCR has obtained a copy of a scathingly critical report of what was to be the final Vatican-approved English translation of the Roman Missal. The report was sent to English-speaking bishops’ conferences around the world”:

    Areas of Difficulty in the Received Text of the Missal

    “Whoever wrote the report, the bottom line is that it illustrates major areas in which the final Vatican version of the English translation of the Roman Missal made numerous departures from the Vatican’s own translation rules, changing almost countless texts that ICEL and English-speaking bishops’ conferences around the world had adopted — and so far there has been absolutely no explanation from the Vatican to justify those changes.”

    As indicated, the authorship of this report is not identified, and it remains unclear that the apparently flawed English version to which it refers was actually intended to be the final version of the English translation. Thus, for instance, this “expose” might conceivably be an internal working document that deals with final editing still in progress.

  14. joan ellen says:

    Fr., I’ll buy a “Just say NO. Just use Latin” Fr. Z mug.
    Fr., how can we best help others with this new translation, and also help the CDWS as described here: “It is the mission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments to work to promote Pope Benedict’s emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling.””? David Martin…http://newsblaze.com/story/20090801065749zzzz.nb/topstory.html
    That’s two wonderful things for the Church. For souls. All souls.

  15. kgurries says:

    Frank H, thanks — I have not been keeping up on that. But if the progressivist wing is so upset then these post-approval changes may not be so bad.

  16. joan ellen says:

    Fr., I do not mean to be ‘mean’ about the ICEL nor the PCILT. I do mean we need to pray and work harder…for them and for us.

  17. joan ellen says:

    kgurries says:
    10 November 2010 at 5:54 pm
    “Frank H, thanks — I have not been keeping up on that. But if the progressivist wing is so upset then these post-approval changes may not be so bad.”
    Thanks…so very much for helping my frame of mind!!! I badly needed the chuckle I got from your comment.

  18. thereseb says:

    I think copyright runs out on the 1962 Missal in 2012, in the UK.

  19. Prof. Basto says:

    Some will say that regional conferences, not Rome, have the authority to prepare translations. “The Council gave conferences the task! Wah wah wah!
    (…)
    News: the Congregation, whose authority is from the Sovereign Pontiff, has the authority to make changes to the texts to whatever extent is deemed opportune by that Congregation so long as the Holy Father desires them to continue to do so.

    Precisely. The Ecumenincal Council, which is a solemn gathering of the College of Bishops (Pope + Council Fathers, the Council Fathers needing the Pope’s approval for each and every Concilar action), discharges supreme authority in the Church. However, the Roman Pontiff is also, by himself, alone, the subject of supreme authority in the Church.

    So, everything a Council can do a Pope can do alone (that’s why the pre-Vatican II language stated that Council Fathers “participated in the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff”). The post Vatican II language of two subjects of supreme authority (one the pope and the other College of Bishops, composed of head and members, the head being the pope and the College never acting without the approval of its head), in spite of the different emphasis, reaches the same truth:

    Pope = subject of Supreme Authority

    Council of Bishops = head + members = Pope + other bishops = subject of Supreme Authority

    Ergo,

    Subject of Supreme Authority + other Bishops = Subject of Supreme Authority

    x + 0 = x

    Ergo, other bishops = o, that is to say, when it comes to DISCHARGING SUPREME AUTHORITY, they really just participate in the authority that is proper to the Roman Pontiff as a matter of divine law.

    And every disciplinary decision made by a Council can be undone by a Pope. Of course, the subjects of supreme authority cannot rescind the Church’s teaching, the Magisterium, the deposit of Faith. But, when it comes to disciplinary matters (such as, who will approve translations, how it’s going to get done), a Pope can change the disciplinary rule made by a Council just as he can change a rule made by a Predecessor in the Roman pontificate. T

  20. Prof. Basto says:

    As for the actual rumour that the translation is being re-worked by the Roman Curia.

    It was approved by the USCCB. It was sent to Rome for the necessary canonical recognitio (approval of the action of the USCCB). Within the Holy See, the CDWDS has delegated power from the Roman Pontiff to grant recognitio to actions of Episcopal Conferences pertaining to liturgical translations.

    The CDWDS, with faculties from Pope Benedict XVI, granted recognitio. Ergo, the USCCB’s action was approved by the Holy See.

    The USCCB’s president then issued a decree of promulgation announcing all the above and setting the date for the new translation’s entry into force. That decree marks, for all countries, the end of the translation process and the final approval of a Missal (or other liturgical book) translated to the vernacular.

    If the matter returns to Rome now, it surely will return because someone has complained or some authority has found a grotesque error, etc, etc, etc. But given that this will be no longer your ordinary, everyday “grant of recognitio to the vote of an Episcopal Conference”, the CDWDS will not be, I’m afraid, in possession of the ordinary faculties they have delegated from Benedict XVI.

    That is to say, to change a text already promulgated and to do so without an Episcopal Conference vote, the CDWDS will really need an specific grant of authority from Benedict XVI. Their general delegated authority to grant recognitio pressuposes an episcopal vote. If the manner of doing things will be changed, if texts are going to be imposed without a vote, then they will need personal action from Benedict XVI approving and ordering the publication of any decree issued by the Congregation.

  21. Okay, okay Father, I’m guilty. I sent you an email AND a tweet about two different articles over the last few months. Take all the time you need. We can all still work with the chants and new Mass settings to get ready for whatever, whenever. And thanks for responding as you have.

    As for your viewing audience in Rome, I can only say, with all due respect and charity:

    Yo, what HE said!

  22. Miriam says:

    Okay I haven’t read all the responses yet. Today I started watching a DVD called A New Translation for the Roman Missal. Just watched the part about what the priest says and our responses and the Eurcharistic prayers.

    15 YEARS! It took 15 YEARS to do this. Are they all nuts? Should have taken a week, week and a half maybe if they were slow.

    Oh Duh.

    And when will we here in the beautiful USA be able to use a Bible translation that is (Oh stars, happy day) the one the Pope uses. My understanding is that he uses the RSV. Catholic edition.

    We are stuck with the NAB the most ridiculous translation I have ever heard. As a convert the very first time I heard the 23rd Psalm at Mass, I had no idea what they were talking about. Come on that translation is an insult.

  23. Dave N. says:

    “Just say NO! Just USE LATIN!”

    Your lips to God’s ears.

    I think the sad part is that there seems to be a gathering cloud over the legitimacy of the entire process. If the MR is promulgated as it was approved by the bishops, then parties (for whom it is advantageous) will continue to allege translation problems and a failed project. In the meantime, people responsible for catechesis are left wondering whether this will all really happen by 2011 and if so, what the text will ultimately look like.

    Perhaps the U.S. bishops, in their wisdom, will provide some clarity after their November meeting. Perhaps.

  24. frjim4321 says:

    It seems like a bit of a train wreck. A date has been set for the imposition of the new translation and there is not even a complete translation ready yet. With the rush to print there are likely to be thousands of errors if they attempt to ship bound missals by the Fall of 2011.

    It would be interesting to know the “considerations” the members of vox clara are receiving from the publishing houses.

  25. Dan says:

    Not that this would be my preference, but if people don’t like the new translation it would seem highly unlikely that droves would switch to the Latin, but rather would continue using the present translations.

  26. TNCath says:

    While I agree that using more Latin in the Mass would be helpful, the fact that, after all these years of translating, they still didn’t get it right is utterly ridiculous and embarrassing. Add this to the list of so many other things going on (or not going on) in the Church, and it proves the fact that the Church is a Divine Institution that would have failed long ago otherwise.

  27. benedictgal says:

    All I can say is that the reported problems are more frightening to me than the alleged 2012 Doomsday prophecies. Oh wait! This is doomsday, at least for those of us who have been praying steadfastly for a truly fitting, solemn, majestic and beautiful English translation of the Roman Missal. This is enough to make poor Fr. Richard John Neuhaus roll over repeatedly in his grave.

  28. benedictgal says:

    After my tongue-in -cheek post, I decided to put my journalism degree to work and do some fact-checking. There is something that perhaps we may have missed in this report. The document that the NCR has does not carry a date. Thus, while the assumption can be made that this report was fairly recent, I don’t seem to think that might be the case at all.

    There are some glaring holes here. First of all, why would the CDWDS grant this revised translation the recognitio and then, in a move worthy of Lucy Van Pelt, pull back the proverbial football before Charlie Brown can even get the chance to kick it? That certainly does not make sense. That may be the way Congress can function, at times, but, not the Holy See.

    Furthermore, the CDWDS had already told the USCCB that it would be translating the antiphons (if memory serves). The USCCB had gotten hung up on the liturgical debate that it wound up dragging the process longer than needed, hence Rome took over the antiphons. It does not seem to me, simple woman that I am, that the Holy See would likely contradict itself.

    The bulk of the translation took place under the watch of Francis Cardinal Arinze and soon to be Cardinal Malcolm Ranjinth. I do not think that neither Arinze nor Ranjinth would have allowed these issues to fester. They would have been dealt with fairly quickly and accurately.

    Lastly, ICEL is not the only entity with some responsibility here. Along with the CDWDS, Vox Clara also had a stake in this.

    If the Fishwrap wants to make this seem like some sort of Watergate/Da Vince Code-esque cover-up, I think that it needs to be more forthcoming with specifics. A date for this document would be a good starting point.

  29. benedictgal says:

    I forgot to add one other thing: one of the posters indicated that these revisions can only serve to improve what will be coming. This leads me to believe that, given the fact that the recognitio had already been given, this document might just pre-date it. Then, this would mean that the changes might have already been made in the final version.

  30. robtbrown says:

    Jeffrey Pinyan says:

    “… because English has again been shown by ecclesiastical authority yet again not to be a liturgical language.”

    It’s not that English would been shown not to be a liturgical language. Lousy Latin doesn’t show that Latin is not a liturgical language, it just shows that Latin can be lousy, and lousy Latin isn’t good for the liturgy. The English translation is getting fouled up by somebody (or somebodies), and that doesn’t mean English cannot be a liturgical language, but that not just any English should be admitted to liturgical use.

    I don’t think you see point, which is that by its very nature Latin lends itself to liturgy: It is transcultural, thus gives someone a better sense of the transcendent.

    I recommend John XIII’s Veterum Sapientia.

  31. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    It seems like a bit of a train wreck.

    Whatever. It has to be better than the garbage that has passed for liturgy the past 40 years.

  32. pelerin says:

    A comment above mentions that the new translation has taken fifteen years! I have just looked up to see how long Mgr Ronald Knox took to translate the Bible single-handed. He was asked to do the New Testament in 1936 and completed it by 1945 and ten years later he finished the Old Testament. What a pity he is not around now!

  33. joecct77 says:

    But Father!!!!!

    When can we expect the AIM translation??? We must stay relevant to today’s culture and to our youth, right???

    As to the posters who prefer Latin over English (which includes this humble poster), we need something good as the starting point. Translating “And They’ll Know We Are Christians By Our Love” would still yield something awful.

  34. @robtbrown – I’ve already read Veterum Sapientia, and I agree with it. I use it as a source from time to time when people ask me about Latin in the liturgy. I also agree with the introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy, per Sacrosanctum Concilium.

    @kgurries“if the progressivist wing is so upset then these post-approval changes may not be so bad.” If you don’t know what they are, I would recommend not making such a rash judgment about the quality of changes. Read the PDF report I linked. I have found very few people who give the 2010 edits carte blanche, and the author of the report is a supporter of the 2008 text.

    @benedictgal – I do not think it likely that your suppositions are correct.

    “why would the CDWDS grant this revised translation the recognitio and then … pull back the proverbial football? … That may be the way Congress can function, at times, but, not the Holy See.”

    Why would the 2008 Order of Mass have been granted recognitio, and then changed in 2010 and reissued? Just because an office resides in the Vatican does not mean it runs smoothly and appropriately all the time.

    “It does not seem to me, simple woman that I am, that the Holy See would likely contradict itself.”

    I think your simplicity is getting the best of you here. You speak of the Holy See as if it were a single organ; there are many dicasteries, many groups within them, and many people. Sometimes things are delegated and done poorly and sent off with fast approval.

    “I do not think that neither Arinze nor Ranjinth would have allowed these issues to fester. They would have been dealt with fairly quickly and accurately.”

    They cannot oversee every little step. And anyway, neither you nor I know them well enough personally (writing letters and attending conferences doesn’t count) to know just how they would have handled these matters.

    “ICEL … CDWDS, [and] Vox Clara … had a stake in this.”

    Yes, and sadly, one rotten apple can spoil the whole bunch. A few persons can give an organization a bad name; the clergy sexual abuse scandal has reminded us of that.

  35. frjim4321 says:

    If memory serves about 16 years went into the first ICEL translation that was shelved, so it would not be a surprise if the same thing happened to this attempt.

  36. Tina in Ashburn says:

    What happened to the perfectly exact translation of the Mass that was used before the ICEL translation kicked in? Why is the Church doing the work over again?
    When the New Mass was first introduced, an accurate translation was used for a short time. Doesn’t anyone remember this?

    If this whole new “translation train” gets wrecked and the Church is not prepared for the ‘launch date” …I suggest that all Masses be said in Latin until the translation is settled. The Latin is already there, no extra work or expense or infighthing – priests can simply take time, starting now, to learn to pronounce and say the Latin Mass.
    1. this might speed up the translation process since so many are opposed to a sacred language and sourpusses will agree to anything to get back to English, or
    2. once everyone gets used to the Latin, they might wonder why we bothered using English in the first place, and we can forget the whole expensive mess

  37. Jim of Bowie says:

    Henry E. said:
    “Thus, for instance, this “expose” might conceivably be an internal working document that deals with final editing still in progress.”

    I pray that this or some other reasonable explanation is true and that it is just the Libs at PTB trying to stir up trouble and get implementation delayed. After all, the guy who wrote the “expose” didn’t even have the courage to put his real name to it.

  38. Tina in Ashburn says:

    I mean really, can’t they resolve all this infighting and suspense over this translation with the response: “Fine, since we can’t agree, lets just use the Latin until we finish this translation”. So simple.

  39. robtbrown says:

    Jeffrey Pinyan says:

    @robtbrown – I’ve already read Veterum Sapientia, and I agree with it. I use it as a source from time to time when people ask me about Latin in the liturgy. I also agree with the introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy, per Sacrosanctum Concilium.

    Do you think there is substantial inconsistency between what is said about the vernacular in SC and Veterum Sapientia?

  40. TJerome says:

    FRjim4321. Is this your personal hope?The current ICEL translation is an embarrassement to any sentient human being. Only older, lefty clergymen mired hopelessly in the 1960s want to preserve the status quo. They are too rigid, doctrinaire, and impervious to change.

  41. frjim4321 says:

    TJ . . . it would not bother me if the current attempt was shelved . . . according to the recent reports (yet to be confirmed) it seems that in many ways the most recent redactors did not follow their own standards imposed by LA. I had the opporuntity to see sections of the previous ICEL translation (the one that was shelved) and it met many of the legitimate concerns expressed about the currently used translation. Indeed I agree that the currently used translation was never intended to be a hundred-year document and needed to be redone eventually. The English used in the shelved ICEL Sacramentary is much less grating on the ear than the currently proposed attempt.

    I was not a fan of the 2008 product, but at least it was consistent and one could tell that the work was painstakingly careful and slavishly faithful to LA. However, if the recent document reveals the truth about the 2010 redaction it clearly is a monstrous mess and really is not worthy to see the light of day.

    I appreciate the blogmaster withholding judgment on this . . . for although indicators are very strong that there is a huge problem with the product, all of the information is not yet forthcoming.

  42. @Jim of Bowie“I pray that this or some other reasonable explanation is true and that it is just the Libs at PTB trying to stir up trouble and get implementation delayed. After all, the guy who wrote the “expose” didn’t even have the courage to put his real name to it.”

    But the “Libs at PTB” are putting their names on the line by spreading the word. If they turn out to be shills for a falsehood — or liars themselves — their own credibility is shot.

    As for the pseudonymity of the exposé, Msgr. James Moroney has said that a lot of the translation work itself was done under anonymity and secrecy. Cut this author some slack.

  43. Konichiwa says:

    Fr Z,
    I just read your latest post about the new translation with responses from seminarians. It’s nice to see that some would want to use the Latin in certain parts or the entire Mass if they find the English translation to be unsatisfactory. I hope that many seminarians share the same opinion and plan. It would be as you say, “Brick by brick.”

  44. benedictgal says:

    @jeff:

    I do believe, however, that the fact that the document the NCR posted does not have a date is of some significance here. This document could have been dated in the intervening time between 2008 (when the study text was first issued) and 2010, the date of the recognitio. Furthermore, I do not think that anyone, other than the bishops, has seen the rest of the translation. All that we have is the Ordinary of the Mass. The document in question treats the matter of the Collects, Prefaces, Antiphons and other prayers.

    That is why, in my opinion, the absence of a date in the NCR posting, leads me to believe that something is slightly amiss.

  45. TJerome says:

    Frjim4321, but I assume you agree that et cum spiritu tuo should be translated “and with your spirit” as opposed to the current “and also with you?”

  46. @benedictgal – I cannot say why the report on the 2008/2010 texts has no date of publication. But I can say that non-bishops (including people not at all responsible for the translation process) have reported seeing parts of the translation outside the Order of Mass.

  47. frjim4321 says:

    TJ, I’m a fan of not fixing what isn’t broken. [What isn’t broken? … ?!?! … everything is just fine, I suppose.]

  48. TJerome says:

    frjim4321, it is broken. You told me volumes about yourself when you won’t even acknowledge that this translation is a problem. I understand now that you’re a “progressive” stuck in the 1960s. Thanks for the admission. By the way, by maintaining that pathetic translation of et cum spiritu tuo , we in the English world are out of sink with the French, Spanish, the Italians, etc.

  49. frjim4321 says:

    Really, TJ, I dont see where you are getting that . . . I stated above that the present translation was not meant to be permanent and is due for a proper overhaul. The shelved ICEL translation was a clear improvement over the current translation. We’re seeing a repeat of the same problem here. The experts were given a clear set of guidelines (Comme le Prevoit or LA) and produced the required output; then the office holders rejected the work.

    Side-by-side comparisons of the current translation, the earlier shelved translation and the 2008 translation are available on line. Very few people have seen the 2010 product (though some examples are circulating). The style of English in the shelved translation is far better than the current translation – while not being not a jarring a departure from conventional English – so you are wrong in assuming that I am married to the current translation.

    The idea of going back to Latin as a solution is not realistic. Only a very small percentage of English speakers participate in a Latin mass, and to make such an imposition on the vast majority of the English speaking world would cause an even greater exodus to evangelical and non-demominational churches. [I doubt that.]

  50. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    TJ, I’m a fan of not fixing what isn’t broken.

    Are you saying that your diocese or religious order has lots of vocations to the priesthood and religious life? Are there plenty of religious to teach in the schools so that the tuition is low and families without money can afford Catholic education? Are the marriages solid? Or are divorces and annulments common? Do the people abide by Catholic sexual teaching on contraception and abortion?

  51. frjim4321 says:

    rb . . . is there a point there somewhere?

  52. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    The idea of going back to Latin as a solution is not realistic.

    Then the idea of a diocese or religious order having enough vocations is also not realistic. The FSSP in the States this year has 25 new men. Is there any diocese or order in the US with those numbers?

    The return to Latin must be done gradually, but this present situation is untenable.

    Only a very small percentage of English speakers participate in a Latin mass,

    And a very small percentage of those same English speakers don’t practice contraception.

    BTW, a few years ago the percentage of pro abortion Catholics was no different than non Catholics. And the most pro abortion state, Rhode Island, had the highest percentage of Catholics.

    and to make such an imposition on the vast majority of the English speaking world would cause an even greater exodus to evangelical and non-demominational churches.

    That’s losers’ talk–typical liberal whining. Read the lives of saints, and you will realize that they never favored your lowest common denominator approach.

  53. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    rb . . . is there a point there somewhere?

    The point is obvious for anyone who understands the relationship between liturgy and the Catholic life. You will find it admirably stated in SC.

  54. TJerome says:

    FR4321, the fact that you don’t think spiritu (spiritus) should be translated as spirit means you have no respect for principles of translation nor tradition. In terms of Latin, only a moron, cannot follow the Mass in Latin if they have a Missal with the vernacular on the opposite page . I guess you think we’re all morons. Moreover, Sacrosanctum Concilium mandates that the people learn to chant, in Latin, the parts of the Mass proper to them. So I guess you’re a Cafeteria type of Catholic, pick the things in Vatican II you like, ignore the parts you don’t. Given the rapid fall in Sunday Mass attendence following the Council with the “new and improved” Liturgy (in the US pre “reform” about 80% of Catholics went to Sunday Mass compared to about 23% now) I think I would be a little more introspective about your assertion that you don’t want to fix what ain’t broken. If the way Mass is routinely said in the typical parish in the US ain’t broken, I don’t know what is. By the way did you ever retract your assertion that Bishop Morlino didn’t tell the dissenters in his diocese that they had recourse to canon law, when he clearly said so, in the first sentence of his letter?

  55. TJerome says:

    well when a priest respects his superiors, then I respect the priest. Priests who diss the Pope and the bishops, aren’t worthy of respect. [I think I will disagree with you. Go after their arguments, not their persons. At least in my combox.]

  56. frjim4321 says:

    The 1998 ICEL Sacramentary can be found on line here:

    http://rapidshare.com/files/387089704/ICEL_Sacramentary__1998_.zip

    It’s rapidshare, and it might require a few attempt to download.

  57. Sam Schmitt says:

    St Catherine of Siena also disagrees with you:

    “I do not wish the respect which priests should be given to be in any way diminished; for the reverence and respect which is shown them is not referred to them but to Me, by virtue of the Blood which I have given to them to administer. … You must not offend them; by offending them you offend Me and not them.”

  58. MichaelD says:

    Dear Father:

    This is perhaps one of your all-time best posts! Thank you for all of your work on behalf of the Church and the Liturgy.

  59. SarahM says:

    Fr. Z this post made my weekend much better.

    My Cluster(3 parishes sharing 2 priests) had a “Faith Journey” meeting focusing on our feeling surrounding and preceding the papal visit to us here in the UK and how it had effected us. Out of the 30 that attended I’m the lone totally positive about the whole thing and had to stomach the absolute hatred toward the Pope, the Vatican, and how dare they change “our” mass because we’re all happy with it. I found from somewhere I don’t know the urge to tell them my view of the visit prefaced with my faith formation so they might have a chance of getting a clue…misguided as that may have been it’s done. I’ll give you all the gist as y’all don’t know me any more than most of them do. I’m a born and raised Baptist from Texas who after moving to Italy converted to Catholic which was a long arduous process due to being civilly married to an unconfirmed catholic and having a son of our own at the time. The RICA process went on for about 2 years in Parrish training with the local Ordinary, my PP a Msgr. who enjoys the parish priest life and doesn’t want to lose contact with his community, and his assistant who was finishing ind degree in Italian and Cannon Law so I got every question I could come up with answered and formed my faith into a solid vibrant understanding of why the Latin and the Italian we were using meant the same things. The end of my formation was taking place in 2005 an interesting time to say the least in church history I watch as much of the live coverage of JPII’s funeral proceedings and the conclave as I possibly could. I’ll never for get watching The big bell Gabriel start ringing and then hearing the bells in town start ringing about 20 minutes later and running out side to see friends who were all saying in Latin “Habbamus Papam” for a few minutes before rushing home to watch Cardinal Ratzinger tell us who the next pope was and well he told us in one look ???that’s not Ratzinger doing the announcement !?! And things happened that December on the last mass of Christmas in the entire diocese the ordinary came to my Parrish church to bring me in to the church leaving me as a catholic with one pope to my credit, Papa Benedetto XVI.

    So for me the chance to go to a papal mass was a joyous thought and my duty as laity to be there and take the whole family as these kind of things don’t happen every year, My kids really enjoyed the day, in fact my 2 year old is still carrying her copy of the Magnificat with BXVI’s photo on the back around the house with her and will tell all who ask that is her book and point to the picture and says Pope. I was struck the most by his statement at Hyde park when he referred to Bl. Cardnal Newmans meditation “God has created me to do him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which he has not committed to another” which BXVI later goes on to refer back to saying “Dear young friends: only Jesus knows what “definite service” he has in mind for you. Be open to his voice resounding in the depths of your heart: even now his heart is speaking to your heart. Christ has need of families to remind the world of the dignity of human love and the beauty of family life. He needs men and women who devote their lives to the noble task of education, tending the young and forming them in the ways of the Gospel. He needs those who will consecrate their lives to the pursuit of perfect charity, following him in chastity, poverty and obedience, and serving him in the least of our brothers and sisters. He needs the powerful love of contemplative religious, who sustain the Church’s witness and activity through their constant prayer. And he needs priests, good and holy priests, men who are willing to lay down their lives for their sheep. Ask our Lord what he has in mind for you! Ask him for the generosity to say “yes!” Do not be afraid to give yourself totally to Jesus. He will give you the grace you need to fulfil your vocation.”

    Here’s where I emotionally cracked as I had genuinely started feeling guilty for backing the Pope, finding his visit to be uplifting and to really be longing for an English language liturgy that follows the Latin closely and stresses the connection with the universality of the church. I said I don’t feel like I belong among them with how vastly differing our views are. The meeting ended I went home, had lunch and found this post so Thank You.

    As a parish musician I’m rather stuck I don’t agree in the slightest with the priests views of our faith nor some of the things he does such as yesterdays mass skipping his part in the Pater Noster before the Doxology, and also skipping the penitential right in total, which I would have thought was rather important at a baptismal mass for three infants.

    As for me I’d be happy with going back to the Latin with all it’s depth of meaning. But most of the parish from the top down think TLM is all a show that they don’t get, which is saddening for me.

    I guess I’d best stop now before I write any longer a post.

    In the Faith,
    Sarah

  60. catholicmidwest says:

    I’ll take it, whatever it is, come Nov 27th, 2011. I can’t wait. Listen–it can hardly be worse than what we’ve struggled with for 40 years now.

    Personally, I think there are a lot of malcontents trying to poison the well for everyone else. Reminds me of the run-up to the publication of the Catechism, only bigger and louder. And I hope they choke on it.

    November 27th, 2011, here we come.

  61. catholicmidwest says:

    Frjim4321,
    You can keep your hippie “translation” of 1998. It was never approved for use and it never will be. Thank God.