I was standing in a gallery of the Tate Britain looking at a piece by William Blake… this one as a matter of fact…
… when I had an SMS to check mail.
Therein I found a link to something mentioned during lunch by His Hermeneuticalness.
Aside: I should travel more often: exciting things happen when I am on the road and less connected.
A great deal the new Roman Missal has been leaked in several .PDF files (images of the pages rather than usable text). They may be found on a site called Wikispooks.
I found the “cover letter” or “introduction entitled “Areas of Difficulty” to be very interesting. The person who wrote it, not necessary the same as the one who leaked it or caused it to be leaked, has obviously had the texts both the “white book” approved by the Holy See’s CDW and then the revisions to the same that have come along.
I find it interesting that this happens at the time the bishops of the USA and of England and Wales are having their respective meetings.
Having read through “Areas of Difficulties” I can say that I agree in large part with the author’s concerns.
Where Liturgiam authenticam = LA and Ratio translationis = RT, here are the areas of concern identified by the writer:
1. change of meaning from the Latin original (RT 41)
2. mistranslation of the Latin (RT 20)
3. limiting of the vocabulary (LA 49/51; RT 20, 46-50)
4. additions of an element not found in the Latin (LA 20)
5. omission of an element found in the Latin (RT 44)
6. weakening of Scriptural allusion (RT 6, 36)
7. loss of intensity of original (RT 50/62)
8. introduction of a theological problem (RT 102)
9. difficulty with English grammar or usage (LA 44/74)
10. adoption of Neo-Vulgate when an antiphon uses the Vulgate (LA 37/38; RT
37/107)
11. capitalization of LORD when it renders YHWH. (LA 41c; RT 81/116)
12. suppression of a rhetorical device (LA 57a/58/59)
13. translations of ‘unigenitum’ (RT 81)
Here is an example of the writer’s work:
Prayer after Communion, Wednesday, Week I, Advent (A20pc)
This prayer appears five additional times in Advent; cf. A35pc, A55pc, A70pc, A75pc, and
A90pc.Lines 2 to 4 of the Received Text read:
that this divine sustenance
may cleanse us of our faults
and prepare us for the coming feasts.
The Gray Book text reads:
that these divine provisions,
which have cleansed us of vices,
may prepare us for the coming feast.The corresponding Latin text reads:
ut haec divina subsidia, a vitiis expiatos,
ad festa ventura nos praeparent.The translation of vitiis as “faults” is at best weak but more likely wrong in this context. A vice as described in the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a “habit acquired by repeated sin in violation of the proper norms of human morality.” This habitual form of evil is seen in contrast to virtue which is described in the same Glossary “as a habitual and firm disposition to do good.” This contrast is illustrated in the third section of the blessing of baptismal water at the Easter Vigil (P634bn): “so that from the mystery of one and the same element of water would come an end to vice and a beginning of virtue.” Translating vitiis as “vices” emphasizes that God’s grace enables us to overcome habitual evil, not just the cleansing of individual faults.
Elsewhere in the Proper of Time vitiis/vitia is mistranslated in the Prayer after Communion, Second Sunday after the Nativity (p.168, N197pc “our offenses may be cleansed”), in the Prayer over the Offerings for Tuesday, Week II of Lent (Q344so, “we are cleansed of earthly faults”), in the Prayer after Communion for Wednesday, Week V of Lent (Q476pc, “that…we may constantly be cleansed of our faults”).
It is with paschal faith that the Church confesses in its Easter Proclamation (P616pr):
This is the night,
that even now, throughout the world,
sets Christian believers apart from worldly vices
and from the gloom of sin,
leading them to grace,
and joining them to his holy ones.
This will give you and example of the way the writer has looked at the texts.
In seven instances the following examples of Latin verbs that designate God’s agency are not accounted for in the translation, though they are translated in the text approved by the Conference.
20. concede, Prayer over the Offerings, Vigil, Nativity of the Lord (N148so)
21. tribue, Prayer over the Offerings, Monday of Holy Week (Q528so)
22. dedisse, Prayer after Communion, Wednesday of Holy Week (Q542pc)
23. ut .., facias, Collect, Friday, Sixth Week of Easter (P866co)
24. praesta, Collect, Twenty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time (O1053co)
25. ut…permittas, Prayer after Communion, Thirty-Fourth Week OT (O1129pc)
26. digneris, Alternative Collect, Most Sacred Heart of Jesus (O1143co)
Worth paying attention to?
You decide.
WDTPRS will start drill into texts. That’s what we do around here.
Loading ...
Here is something of note from the USCCB:
There has been some discussion recently about a report surfaced through some segments of the Catholic Press regarding the present state of the text of the Roman Missal, Third Edition. A number of facts will hopefully clarify the situation and, in so doing, give us the calm needed to welcome and implement the new text.
First, it is helpful to keep in mind the genesis of the final text that is now being prepared for publication. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) prepared for the English-speaking Conferences of Bishops preliminary drafts (“green books”) of the 12 sections of the Roman Missal. After incorporating the feedback and responses of the individual Conferences of Bishops and the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, ICEL then prepared the final drafts (“gray books”). These were approved by canonical vote by each of the member Conferences. In approving the gray books, each conference also had the opportunity to make further suggestions to the Congregation, as was done in particular by our Conference. We submitted many amendments to the texts. The Congregation, working with the Vox Clara Committee, carefully listened to what the bishops said. The Congregation incorporated many of the suggestions of the various Conferences (including our own), combined with their own review and changes, and put forth the final text. The Congregation followed the principles of Liturgiam Authenticam faithfully but not slavishly.
This is the final text now being readied for publication. This process includes a final review and copy edit which, given the size of the text, uncovers some minor questions of consistency, typographical errors, and layout. Those questions are being addressed by the Congregation for Divine Worship. This review has not dealt with the translation itself. The critique that has circulated has necessarily failed to take into account the final version of the text, which incorporates some corrections issued by the Congregation since the transmittal of the full text to the English-speaking Conferences of Bishops in August 2010.
To sum up, there is a final text. It has received a recognitio. As the work of editing and assembling nears completion, there is assurance that the published text will be available in more than ample time for implementation in Advent 2011. It is good to note also that the catechetical preparation for implementation is already underway and has proceeded with much enthusiasm and wide acceptance by both clergy and laity. It is clear at this point in time that there is an attitude of openness and readiness to receive the new text. Let us pray in this time of transition and change that the Roman Missal, Third Edition, will enable all to understand more deeply the mysteries we celebrate.
Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli
Chairman
November 18, 2010
——–
I do not know if this has any bearing, but, I am happy that Bishop Serratelli finally said something about the issue.
Fr. Z,
A commenter named Jeffrey Pinyan mentioned this “Areas of Difficulty” PDF file on an earlier thread on your blog. Some of the comments that followed in that blog thread suggested that this “Areas of Difficulty” document might be a couple years out of date, referring to an earlier version of the translation. Does anyone know for sure when it was written?
Can’t we just teach our children Latin?
This is way beyond my level of knowledge but I wonder if this is one area where otherwise differing elements form the Church can come together? I note Fr Anthony Ruff (not a priest I agree with on many things) has expressed his concerns too – perhaps we don’t need to (and in this case shouldn’t) see everything through a “conservative v. liberal” lens? I have posted likewise on Fr Ruff’s blog, Pray Tell.
.
I see that Bishop Seratelli has just issued a statement ( see http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2010/11/faithfully-but-not-slavishly-amid.html ) to the effect that there are still some minor edits going on:
the final text [is] now being readied for publication. This process includes a final review and copy edit which, given the size of the text, uncovers some minor questions of consistency, typographical errors, and layout. Those questions are being addressed by the Congregation for Divine Worship
preceded by this marvellous sentence:
The Congregation followed the principles of Liturgiam Authenticam faithfully but not slavishly.
—
WDTPRS will start drill into texts. That’s what we do around here
Greatly looking forward to this, Father.
For starters, how about one that the paper “Areas of Difficulties” apparently missed?
I refer to the conclusion of the Prefaces, introducing the Sanctus where one finds the use (not picked up by the analysis) of we acclaim as a verbum dicendi translating the concluding phrases of the prefaces sine fine dicentes, dicentes clamantes, confitentes, clamantes atque dicentes, una voce dicentes, te laudamus in gaudio confitentes,laudis voce clamantes, supplici confessione dicentes, iucunda celebrations clamantes &c.
Not only does this remove the perfectly acceptable participle – “evermore praising you and saying:”, “praising you without end saying:” and so on,
not only does it usually fail to distinguish between
dicentes = saying (in liturgical use normally encompassing “singing”)
and
clamantes = crying/crying out/crying aloud
and
confitentes = confessing/acknowledging
But, but, I have never, ever, in British English, encountered acclaim as a verbum dicendi. One can acclaim someone as something, e.g. “We acclaim you as Lord and King”, but I cannot think of an example of acclaim as an introduction to Direct Speech.
Proclaim, yes, declaim, possibly, but not acclaim!
For confitentes confessing is possible, acknowledging just makes sense in the contect of what follows, though would normally expect to acknowledge someone/thing as something.
Is acclaim commonly used as a verbum dicendi in American English?
Kind regards, and hoping that you have both enjoyed your time in the U.K. and that your health has recovered,
John U.K.
Father-
You didn’t use a flash in the museum, I hope.
:)
Fr. Z.,
We depend on your slavishly accurate work very much. We also pray for a good outcome, and dare to hope for a strong positive influence from Abp. Dolan.
On the other hand, I’m with Supertradmum: Let’s just focus on teaching the Latin, and save all the expense and anguish associated with a(nother) possibly defective translation.
“WDTPRS will start drill into texts. That’s what we do around here.”
Good on you, Fr.
Nil carburundum..
I read on Whispers that Archbishop Gregory Aymond will be heading the BCDW. I must have had my head stuck under a rock.
He was the bishop of my diocese for many years here in Austin. He loved the schola cantorum I helped form and promoted it enthusiastically, and he was very supportive of the TLM in Austin….even having it relocated to the cathedral itself. This was all before Summorrum Pontificum.
I have high hopes for his chairmanship.
The translation of the ordinary of the mass up at the USCCB website is not the same as the 2008 text (as released in South Africa and found at various sites) but has the changes reported in critique. And if my memory serves, it is also different than what was up there a few months ago.
I’m still confused about what Bishop Serratelli writes. How would the critique be that far off it failed to take into account the changes made since August 2010, which as the bishop admits, were not substantial ( “some minor questions of consistency, typographical errors, and layout.”)? At any rate, it seems that the so-called “received text” (the one critiqued by the report) is substantially the same as what he calls the “final text.” This is also borne out in the version now posted at the USCCB website (as I mentioned earlier). If this is the case, then the critique is basically valid and the issues it raises are a cause for concern.
Also, it is difficult to imagine that suggestions submitted by bishops resulted in such changes as tenses of verbs, substitutions of individual words in prayers used once a year, and other modifications that seem to make little or no sense. (Am I way off-base on this? I can understand changes to the ordinary of the mass, or to the wording of the rubrics – but changing all those different verbs in the communion prayers to “nourish” as reported in the critique?) Thus the conclusion seems inevitable that many of the changes critiqued in the report were made single-handedly by the CDW, as was part of the process outlined by Bishop Serratelli.
It’s interesting to note that Msgr. James Moroney in an interview published less than a month ago quotes from different version than the so-called “received” version. (Compare the collect for the Christmas Mass during the Day given in this interview with the received version.)
JohnUK, in my first reply to this blog entry, I posted the entire text of Bishop Serratelli’s comments. I was also the one who raised the point that the revisions were probably made in response to the letter being circulated by the NCR fishwrap.
Synonym for the NCR Fishwrap: The National Catholic Distorter!!
I dunno. Vitium is frequently used in Imperial Latin as a euphemism. Fault and defect are my first knee-jerk translations of the word. Maybe at the time when this post-communion was composed it had acquired the meaning of “systematic sinful pattern of action”, but I’ve never read any suggestion that this noun referes to anything systematic, nor to I see anything in L&S that indicates such a trajectory in the word’s semantic range. A good lexicon is where you want to go, not to the CCC.
I have to admit that I often have seen some of these comparisons. The nits that I prefer to pick are usually not the ones that have received attention on other blogs. One obvious issue with the difference of translations here is whether to translate the participial phrase “a vitiis expiatos” as a clause with the English indicative or with the modal verb “may”. “May cleanse us of our faults” to my mind is clearly what the Latin is saying. The participial phrase here is not the same as “qui a vitiis expiati sumus”. Another way to translate the sentence would have been, “…that these divine povisions may expiate our faults and prepare us for the coming feasts.” There is a lot more theological significance about whether our faults have indeed already been expiated than whether we should call them faults or vices or whether we translate festa as feast or feasts. What if we are not sorry for our faults/vices? Have we still in fact been cleansed of them?
One further point of clarification: Latin participles are time relative to the verb of the clause, here praeparent. They do not reflect absolute time. In other words the sentence, “Urbem nostram obsessam capient,” is not, “They will seize our city, which was besieged.” Rather it is, “They will capture our city after it has been besieged (presumably by the clause’s subject).” Whether the city has indeed already been besieged cannot be inferred from the Latin.
Jerusalem — Wm. Blake
And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!
And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!
I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land
“On the other hand, I’m with Supertradmum: Let’s just focus on teaching the Latin, and save all the expense and anguish associated with a(nother) possibly defective translation.”
What’s wrong with the English translation in my 1962 Missal?
I personally look forward to your take on the matter, Father, and how we American Catholics can best learn to live with what is soon coming to our churches. That goes ditto with learning who cast us into this 1998/2008/2010 mess. And I’ll take the gravitas of a direct threat of the “first ten seconds in hell” over the frothing histrionics of the other
Minnesotan’sliturgy blogs any day, any hour.Benedictgal: You suggested above that “I was also the one who raised the point that the revisions were probably made in response to the letter being circulated by the NCR fishwrap.”
That could be true, but Archbishop Serratelli’s letter that you posted above does not seem to support that theory. Assuming that the Areas of Difficulty document is indeed the document that Abp. Serratelli says has “recently surfaced” in his first sentence (which everyone seems to be assuming), what does the archbishop say about this document? He says that “The critique that has circulated has necessarily failed to take into account the final version of the text.” This means that it is not a brand-new analysis of the newest version of the missal.
However, his phrasing also rules out the possibility that the latest round of revisions were made in response to the Areas of Difficulty document, as you seem to be suggesting. Analogy: If I write a first draft of a paper for school, and send it to a friend for suggestions, and then I write a second draft incorporating his suggestions, I would not then turn around and criticize my friend’s suggestions for “failing to take into account” my second draft!
Is it possible that Areas of Difficulty will be used for the final batch of revisions that still lies in the future? It seems not, since that document deals almost entirely with translation issues, and the archbishop explains that any future revisions will not deal with “the translation itself”, but merely with “minor questions of consistency, typographical errors, and layout.” If they are at the stage where layout is being perfected, they certainly aren’t going back to revisit anything deeper at this time.
I hope I’m wrong. When the new missal is promulgated, we will know for sure. Still, if the only flaws in the new translation are the ones mentioned in Areas of Difficulty, it will still be much better than what we have today!
I can understand that many revisions are needed. But I find it bizarre that any stage — even an intermediate stage — of an authentic translation could make elementary Latin errors, such as not realizing that “tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti” is dative! The author of this blog post claims this is the “2010 version”, but I don’t know what his evidence is. He didn’t get this from Wikispooks, because the PDFs at Wikispooks match the text he calls the “2008 version”.
Maybe a few decades from now, someone will write a book explaining all the stages and who was responsible for each!
Part of the problem might be that the translators are scholars trained in Classics. Their dictionaries and their expertise are limited to pre Christian authors, to a time when Christian concepts and Christian terminology were not yet developed. That might explain why someone would translate “vitium” as “fault”. If your dictionary makes no reference to Jerome, Tertulian, Augustine, Cyprian, Nola, Ambrose, none of the Christian authors, what can you expect? Is Cicero going to teach us how to pray as Christians?
The bishop in question and a number of other apologists have been making the rounds of the dioceses and raking in honoraria . . . we’ve had him and a couple other notables for indoctrination here. He and the various monsignori know where their bread is buttered. None of them are stupid . . . but they spout the company line nonetheless. Sell-outs.
Pingback: Thoughts about correcting the Corrected Translation | Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say?
Ioannes Andreades —
I love you, man, but there’s a teensy weensy little Latin poet, name of Prudentius, who totally transformed the Christian use of the Latin word vitium in his poem “Psychomachia” . Prudentius was one of the most read Latin poets throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. The seven Virtues vs. the seven Vices (in various schemata) is incredibly important to Western Christian culture and art, and the Vices are closely tied to the Seven Deadly Sins as well.
If you mention Romeo and Juliet, you’re not likely to be talking about the etymological meaning of the names. Likewise, the word “vitium” in a Catholic prayer.
Btw, Lewis and Short don’t always include the medieval meanings of Latin words. That wasn’t what their dictionary was for.
@LawrenceK – The author of this blog post claims this is the “2010 version”, but I don’t know what his evidence is. He didn’t get this from Wikispooks, because the PDFs at Wikispooks match the text he calls the “2008 version”.
Lawrence, there are multiple versions from this year. The text that was presented to the Holy Father in April is a 2010 text, but the tweaked text which garnered such severe criticisms by “Xavier Rindfleisch” is also a a 2010 text.
The PDFs at Wikispooks do NOT match the 2008 text. Take a look at the absolution after the Penitential Act: in the 2008 text, it was a new (and better, I think!) translation; in the PDF called the 2010 text, it’s reverted to the old translation. Take a look at the Nicene Creed: multiple “I believe”s, and “believe in one … Church”, rather than “believe one … Church”, changes from the 2008 Order of Mass.
There have been a handful of versions since the 2008 Order of Mass.
Andrew,
Any Classicist worth his salt knows plenty about Medieval Latin. I took one class in Medieval Latin at a secular university as part of my Latin minor, but my all my professors would sometimes say “this word means X in Medieval Latin.” I haven’t looked at the OLD since I graduated, but I’m pretty sure that it includes Medieval/Christian definitions. There’s way too much Medieval Latin to ignore it, even if it’s not of the same quality as Cicero.
What’s nice about the L&S is that at least in theory it covers Latin up to the sixth century (Justinian’s Digest) without distinction between Pagan and Christian authors. I wish that the same could be said about the Oxford Latin Dictionary. In practice, I don’t work enough with Christian authors to know how well they are covered. I would love it if one of the medieval lexica were on-line, since they are in a different library here. They usually don’t give the same degree of attention to words anyway as L&S does. More later.
So will the new Missal go into effect for the whole Anglophone Church, or just those priests who were following a written script when they say Mass in the first place?
Suburbanbanshee,
Theoretically, Prudentius is covered in L&S, though I only found him cited in one article (Aaron). The Vulgate is especially well covered in L&S. In the one on-line medieval Latin lexicon (Niemeyr), there wasn’t even an article for vicium/vitium. Am I to believe that the word never had the simple meaning of fault/defect in Christian Latin, that it always carried such semantic baggage? Even in modern French the word can simply mean defect in such phrases as vice de fabrication and vice de procedure. Like I said before, I’m not convinced that our attention should really be comsumed by the translation of vitium.
@Jeffrey Pinyan:
Do you know whether the translation critiqued by Anthony Ruff OSB in this August 2010 blog post is newer or older than the version on Wikispooks?
I am extremely disturbed by the quality of the translation that Fr. Ruff is critiquing. As I mentioned above, it doesn’t even realize that“tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti” is in the dative.
Personally, I think it’s silly for an English translation of a Latin sentence to try to preserve the Latin word order at all. Liturgiam Authenticam doesn’t require that. But if they are trying to preserve the word order, they certainly also need to preserve the meaning of the original passage!
@Suz. from Oklah.: “What’s wrong with the English translation in my 1962 Missal?”
Nothing, but I can’t say the same for the currently used NO translation. My comment was about the comparison between that and possible errors in the not yet released translation.
@LawrenceK – It is believed the WikiSpooks Missal is the one that was presented to the Holy Father in April. Its version of the doxology is: “Through him, and with him, and in him, to you, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, is all honor and glory, for ever and ever.” So it uses the dative. But yes, the word order (which LA gives loose guidelines for: “The connection between various expressions, manifested by subordinate and relative clauses, the ordering of words, and various forms of parallelism, is to be maintained as completely as possible in a manner appropriate to the vernacular language.”) is painful there. The current doxology gets it better, though without the dative.
The version Fr. Anthony critiqued in August is most likely more recent than the Wikispooks text. We can hope and pray that the Order of Mass is also being subject to some final scrutiny to refine it.
This translation of the doxology (which I’ve just written up on the spot) is close enough to the current translation (which flows linguistically) to work with the standard melodies to which it is chanted, but uses the dative: “Through him, [and] with him, and in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, to you, O God, almighty Father, is all honor and glory, for ever and ever.”
@Suz. from Oklah.: Which English translation of the 1962 missal? There are many, practically one for each missal.
frjim4321, I assume you will follow the new translations when mandated, unless you are one of those make it up as you go along types. The types that I walk out of Mass on.
TJ, again you really don’t know me. I am of the “The Rite is Right” school. For example I loath the vast majority of “Communal Penance Services” because only with rarity to they follow the first form of the Rite. I am not a happy-talk, stand-up, cheer-leader type presider either. Nobody here has to endure “The Lord be with you . . . Good MORNing everyone” schlock.
Frankly I was pleasantly surprised today reviewing the Wikispook samples. Some of them are rather good, in fact reviewing Christmas Midnight Mass the new version is much better than the current version.
So, when you walk out of mass because your personal pet peeves are violated, I assume you will go to another church and fulfill your Sunday obligation.
frjim4321, why not answer my question. It’s really very simple. Will you follow the new translations or not?
It’s not a pet peeve and you as a priest should be well aware that when a priest violates the Rite by changing the words he is committing a grave sin. He’s also violating the very texts of Vatican II’s document on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium , which expressly forbids a priest or bishop from changing the texts on their own authority.
So I guess you are a text changer. Thanks for the info
I am preparing the parishioners for the change that will take place one year from now. We will do several workshops during Lent (the same workshop repeated several times so parishioners can select a convenient time). We might use the DVD that has been provided by ICEL and the FDLC (although I have not had an opportunity to evaluate it yet), and I will supplement it with a PowerPoint presentation of my own composition.
I doubt that anyone who doesn’t want to be suspended will fail to use the new translation. In fact, I know that some bishops with “problems” are waiting to the opportunity. Failure to use the new translation would be an easily provable and canonically viable reason to suspend a pastor or associate.
More importantly, it would be abusive to the parishioners to retain the current translation when everyone else in the diocese is using the new one. It would serve no good purpose to retain the old translation after the mandated change date . . . it would only confuse the faithful. They deserve adquate preparation in order to accomodate to the new text with the minimum of disorientation and aggrivation. As far as changing the text, I haven’t had the opportunity to study it carefully enough. The Wikispooks samples were just released a few days ago. I suspect the ICEL 1998 product did a better job suppressing gender exclusive language. Also, the ICEL 1998 product avoided the word “O,” which is ubiquitous in the samples of the ICEL 2008 product.
Speaking of the word “O,” I don’t see where that occurs in the orgininal of RM3, so the degree to which its inclusion in the ICEL2008/2010 product seems much more to serve idiological purposes than requirements of LA for accuracy. Also, there seems to be an overly obsequious tone of the ICEL2008/2010 product that does not seem to come across as strongly in the RM3.
That having been said I would agree that no solitary presider, proclaiming the texts on the fly, would possess the adequate qualifications to make spontaneous changes. Looking around at various extant presidential styles I would predict that the transition here will be smoother than most places with perhaps very few adjustments from time to time, but nothing like what is likely to happen at many other places.
I am able to insulate my judgment regarding ICEL2008/2010 from my pastoral duties and appreciate the assembly’s right to transition to it as seamlessly as possible. I am also aware of the assembly’s right not to be confused by crosstalk from their pastor versus those who are responsible, accountable and perhaps culpable for this decision.
Further, for all presiders (those who like the new translations and those who have expressed serious concerns about them) 27 November 2011 presents a unique opportunity for a rededication to fine preaching. I believe that if one tenth the energy/effort/time/angst expended around the issue of ICEL 2010 was devoted to homily preparation the faithful would be very very well served. When it comes right down to it, presiders don’t have the authority or competence to create their own sacramentaries; however they have ultimate freedom (within the obvious boundaries) to compose and preach an effective homily.
Thus my intention, for the purposes of providing a smooth transition for the assembly and preserving my own emotional health, is to redouble my efforts with regard to preaching. That seems a better investment of engergy than grinding my teeth over something that I cannot change. You know, it’s the whole Serenity Prayer thing.
If you were a parishioner here you would probably not have as hard a time as you think. There are very few complaints here from the trads, and we have a fairly high retention rate. Our style is not to impose any particular idiology or style. Plus if you really did get to know me you would realize that the image that you have conjured up in your mind is far from reality.
Oh, that previous was for TJ.
frjim4321, presider? That’s what you consider yourself, a presider? that’s soooooooooooooo 1970s. I consider you the priest, the celebrant. If one follows the Ordo , there is no ideology to impose. It’s the priest who doesn’t follow the Ordo that’s the ideologue. Best wishes to you on the implementation.