In between other things, I’ve found it intriguing to compare texts between the current and forthcoming Missals. There is so much there, so much to look through.This is enough to keep anyone occupied until November 27.
My eyes just fell on this Preface II for Easter, New Life in Christ
CURRENT: He has made us children of the light, rising to new and everlasting life. He has opened the gates of heaven to receive his faithful people.
FORTHCOMING: Through him the children of light rise to eternal life and the halls of the heavenly Kingdom are thrown open to the faithful.
Now, if I’m not mistaken, the first strongly implies that everyone present in the gathered community, right there in the pews, is a child of light, not at some point in the future after a holy death but right now, and, even as you and I sit there listening, we are already rising to everlasting life. And we don’t have to do anything but be in the presence of the announcement. Very flattering, I must say.
The second version speaks of no one in particular but only of the existence of children of light who are rising to enter heaven and who gain that status not merely by having been made so but rather through the work of Christ. That changes things just a bit.
If you have other examples along these lines — far too little work has been done that compares the translations at this level of detail — please send them our way.
Even as a rude and outspoken critic of the current translation, I must admit the prefaces are usually decent (unlike the collects). I could have believed the current one was from 2008. In the new version, I don't know what it means that the "halls are thrown open". I've heard of doors, gates, things that open, being "thrown open", but never a hall.
To defend the "made us…" portion, I'd interpret this as referring to the Church corporate. Of course, the ultimate judge is the Latin, to which the 2010 is undeniably more faithful.
Oh c'mon, Jeffrey, do more with the introduction: "laud you ever more gloriously in this time" and "overcome with paschal joy, even the Powers of heaven rejoice."
That's the fun stuff we're going to hear over and over and over again!
But at least we've got a new translation.
Oh, and what do you make of "disordered affections" where the Latin has "inordinate desires"? Whatever will some of our disordered musicians make of that?
Anonymous, I don't see any problems with any of those things. I'll be happy to hear them over and over and over again!!
Precentor: If you're involved professionally, or even not professionally, with Roman Catholic liturgical music, you really owe it to yourself, if not to the people you work for and/or serve, to familiarize yourself at least with Liturgiam authenticam and, it should go without saying, with the Latin original of the texts. You'll see that the above (apparently approved) versions of the English translation are, in fact, erroneous. Most egregious is the rendering of profusis as overcome: it is just flat-out incorrect. And the use of "even" butchers the English usage, in that it sets up an erroneous contrast: "even the Powers of heaven rejoice" would be correct if we had reason to imagine they would not.
All of this the 2008 translation rendered accurately and in a very exalted "register" of traditional liturgical English.
But by all means, join the chorus of "At least," which seems to be the mantra on this blog. There's great safe comfort in criticising the old ICEL by comparing the 2010 to it. Even the proprietor of this blog has admitted here and elsewhere that it's not so comforting to compare the 2010 to the 2008, because the latter is both accurate and literate. And it certainly isn't safe, as some very dedicated and scholarly priests have found out.
Ignorance is bliss, they say. And loose lips sink ships.
"Now, if I'm not mistaken, the first strongly implies that everyone present in the gathered community, right there in the pews, is a child of light, not at some point in the future after a holy death but right now…."
Gee, no wonder we sing songs at Mass about how wonderful we are! And I guess there's no need to worry about being in a state of grace before receiving Communion….
2008: lost city of Atlantis
Elaborating: the comparison of the current Missal to the forthcoming Missal is in fact the relevant comparison, insofar as it pertains to Catholics outside a very few people who are interested in the details of the various versions between then and now. I can't see much point at all in continuing to writhe in pain over what might have been. I've said and continue to say that Fr. Ruff did heroic work in drawing attention to the problems and his work has made a difference. The end result, whether it is as good or not as the draft, is what it is and what it must be compared with is the really existing Missal translation that has been in effect for 40 years. Again, I ask: what good can possibly come of continuing forever to be outraged at the process and what might have come of it under different circumstances? I'm radically in favor of standing for principle but at some point there really is such a thing as making the perfect the enemy of the vastly improved.
If everyone kept to the rules all the time, then we would all indeed be saints, and the world would have been set ablaze by the charity of God. If everyone kept to the commandments all the time, we would all be united behind the leaders of the Church over the forthcoming new translation.
Patience is not ignorance.
Simon Ho,
Matthew 23, Jesus and the Pharisees: whose side are you on??
I have to agree that the continued whining about the process that has led to the 1998 version being scrapped, the 2008 version changed in 2010 might be fuel for the fire for those who suffer neurotic episodes concerning authority and perfection. Comparing the 1973 version to the 2010 version is an appropriate catechesis. I have to agree with Jeffrey Tucker that it is time to move on. Dissent from legitimate authority in the Church is not going to help rank and file parishioners appreciate the reform that we are experiencing. Thanks for helping the Church to move beyond hand wringing to open hands in accepting the inevitable. This seems healthy on two very important levels, the psychological one and the spiritual one.
I too have to echo Jeffrey's request of anonymous (and, anonymous, I'm sure we'd all appreciate you having some sort of handle, if not your name. It really makes discourse easier, and you don't have to shed your anonymity) as to the value of his/her anger. I too am angry over the changes to the 2008 version, and the process that created them. But, after several long months, I have other things on my mind and don't have the energy for a sustained fight. I agree with everything you say; but for how long must I remain bitter? Until November? Five years? Forty? Until MR4? And what good will such anger serve?
Gavin, well said. (And this IS the Anonymous to whom you are responding; and for my best defense in not moving beyond that title, Exhibit A: Fr Anthony Ruff; Exhibit B: Fr Alan Griffiths. As long as the VC / CDW ecclesiological model is the Politburo, here I cower).
Having agreed with your well-stated points, and Jeffrey's too – and God bless this blog for many years to come for the TREASURY of Propers and Ordinaries which it provides and will provide to an increasingly chanting Church until Sing to the Mountains and Gather Us In are no longer even remembered, let alone heard – my purpose in saying what I did was not to promote either anger or bitterness, but to say let dedicated and competent people, like Jeffrey and his colleagues who promote the highest quality liturgical music courteously but unflinchingly remind the cretins who pulled off the hijacking of 2008: we know what you did and how you did it. We are obedient sons (and daughters) of the Church. Don't let it happen again when you move on to the Hours or the Lectionary. Truth to tell, we know who you are. Next time around: honor the Holy Father's trust in you, and if your Latin's up to it, read over what Cicero had to say to the hack who tried his patience 🙂 That's all!
It sounds best, at first blush, for one to get over ones anger and move on – the new missal is a done deal, nothing is to be gained by hashing out what happened in the past. But this response isn't necessarily the most mature one. There are good reasons for raising issues of power and authority and process, and keeping on raising them, until something changes.
1. The new missal will be a "done deal" only when it is implemented and accepted. We don't know for sure that either will happen. (Think of the withdrawn funeral book in German-speaking lands.) Some people's prudential judgment might be that it better serves the Church to raise a ruckus now to prevent implementation, because it's better to pull the plug now than a month after it's in place and isn't working.
2. I've heard many people intimately involved in the process predict that changes will have to be made to the proper texts, sooner rather than later. With such widespread agreement, including among some in high places, that the proper texts aren't usable, constructive conversation about how to alter them can begin now. This involves clarifying what went wrong this time around.
3. Resentment about the exercise of authority in our Church runs very, very deep in my experience. (I'll be writing more about this at PTB.) The disgust of the laity at the handling of the sex abuse scandal is very strong. Some people judge that issues of power and authority won't be going away soon, and it serves the Church to keep these issues in the forefront to help the Church renew and reform herself. The missal translation offers a ready means to do this.
Pax in Christo,
Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB
Fr. Ruff, thank you for responding. Of course it is easy to say for me what I said above, as a layperson who is not directly subjected to what you describe and who is not involved in the process except as lay observer. We all must choose our paths but I do wish for your happiness.
You know, I'm rather familiar with a certain breed of traditionalist, a person who is not happy unless he or she is mad. Disgruntlement becomes a lifestyle, a mental pattern that becomes essential to one's functioning and central to the way he or she views the world. These people cannot and will not see good trends because they contradict the psychological infrastructure.
To me, this pattern of thought is a warning sign to all people. It is not limited to traditionalists and it can in fact extend to any point of view.
As for the prospects of a redo, I'm with you in expecting that this Missal is not permanent but rather another transitional Missal. There are inherent problems with the Bugnini structure itself that must be addressed in time, and the confusion over propers are just one example. I wondered why there is no Asperges in the ICEL chants but the answer is readily at hand: there is no Asperges in the Roman Missal itself! This must be addressed. There is also the problem of the Offertories and many other issues.
Thanks, Jeffrey.
Re "a certain breed of traditionalist, a person who is not happy unless he or she is mad" – gee, I know plenty of liberals like that! Including myself at times. Common ground!
I find that when I act or write out of anger or resentment, hoping to score a point and beat others, I feel rotten and it puts me on a trajectory of gradually dimishing my spirit and hurting my soul. (I've done enough of this in my life, and in the past year at PTB, to know the feeling quite well.)
Going forward, I feel my soul being stretched toward God when I ponder the ideal of respecting everyone, not expecting to have power or influence in changing the Church (that's out of my hands), showing understanding and compassion for people at all levels of the Church who are sometimes trapped in what they can say or do, and saying my little piece of the truth with openness and honesty – I feel peace and joy and great energy. It's exciting, really, to take up the challenge to be way mature than I now am, and to act with greater poise and inner peace as I keep on speaking my truth.
I expect a mixed track record going forward. From myself and everyone else. Let's all pray for each other.
awr
While I am not privileged to the insider's knowledge that Fr. Anthony describes, I wonder if he would agree with the method that Archbishop LeFebrve undertook to put forth is concerns about the exercise of authority in the Church, Vatican II in general and the Liturgy in particular. He seems to have been successful in organizing a world wide movement, without the use of a blog, opposed the the highest authorities in the Church, the pope, the bishops and Vatican II; but at what price? Is Fr. Anthony hoping for a left-leaning schism and will he be its first bishop? 🙂 And in 40 years will another pope try to bring in the hoards that left for this schismatic group by offering an olive branch of another form of the Liturgy to compete with the OF and its various translations, EF, Anglican Usage and the other rites of the Latin Rite? And will his movement be authority perfect and liturgical, linguistically and otherwise perfect?
Fr. Allan,
Oh, don't tempt my by puttingthought in my mind about mitre and episcopal regelia – I won't be able to think about anything else! 🙂 Not.
I'm in the Roman Catholic Church for life and intend to remain in communion with the See of Peter until death. I hope I never feel differently about that.
Pax,
awr
Fr. Ruff, I too have appreciated both your fraternal corrections and your charitable acceptance of same. But moreso, we owe a debt to your unwavering efforts to assist us all with matters diverse concerning ars celebrandi.
Your admonition, "nothing is to be gained by hashing out what happened in the past…" caught my attention, twisted and weird it may be, in that "hash," as a noun brought to mind the cliches about "sausage making."
Well, most of the sausage appears to be made and is in the packing stage. Despite the volume and myriad observations concerning dubious portions of its contents, has anyone found evidence that its consumption will reveal a poisonous, deathly outcome when delivered and served up? I, for the love of God, hope and believe not. But, as now the process of making this brand of sausage is now a matter of public record, if its nutrional benefit is called into question from all corners of English Catholicism, the ecclesial "USDA" agencies will be aware they cannot hide the rodent hairs and other detritus in their future deliberations.
If, OTOH, the "certain breeds" of fundamentalists insist the poison isn't in the sausage, but in the manufacturer's hearts and souls, then they're free to determine whether the Church stands under the mantle of Jesus and the gospels, or of Pharisees, and decide their own place in that scenario.
I think the presumption that adherents to the principles of this blog or of opposing blog platforms are predisposed to the posture of ignorance is bliss or loose lips sink ships. I think that, as Jeffrey came to realize the benefit of all the Wikispooks' unveilings and credited PT/AWR for their courage, so is the benefit of Fr. Anthony's unerring conviction to confess his Roman Catholic identity in this life.
Final cliche for now: "Plus les choses changent, plus elles restent les mêmes."
Correction:
"I think the presumption that adherents to the principles of this blog or of opposing blog platforms are predisposed to the posture of ignorance is bliss or loose lips sink ships IS FALLACIOUS."
I wish Father Ruff had been around and been my pastor when the disastrous changes were foisted upon us in the 1960s. I'm sure he would have continued to offer Mass in Latin for those of us who couldn't stomach the silly season.
Fr. Ruff wrote: "Resentment about the exercise of authority in our Church runs very, very deep in my experience. (I'll be writing more about this at PTB.)"
You don't say, Fr? Some would suggest the editorial practice at Pray, Sniff is is just another reflection of the culture of authoritarianism against which you rail. For what it's worth, I count myself amongst those who won't take your protests seriously until that blog shows some kind of commitment to liberal enquiry and discussion.
ps you might like to do something about the blasphemy, too.
… and while I'm being a GOM, Fr. McDonald, you may wish to consider the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Aren't we peasants and sinners blest to have a noble Saint of the stature of IanWhiff around to lecture us from the splendour of his high horse? Whatever Rite he's praying in, I want to get myself to it – and quickly! It's obviously done wonders for HIS Catholic Christianity!
And a happy new year to you too, A!
ps the Roman Rite.
Jeffrey, do you have the "final" text now, or only excerpts? I didn't know that much of it was actually available.
Incidentally, has anyone ever heard of an explanation of a reason for the secrecy of the revision process?
I have to admit, I am about as lay'd back a lay person as you can get (get it?!). I have no expertise to compare the Latin with the English because I don't know latin well and I am sure that there are indeed enough Catholics out there who do NOT nor ever have access to the Latin texts for textual comparisons.
I note this only because some of the jabs and invectives in this whole translation issue have been about the textual exactness between the 2008 and 2010 and how it was "our" text that never got through. While meritorious, I would admit that Joe and Mary Catholic will notice a shift in elegant tone and that will translate over into a fuller experience in the years and decades to come.
I think it is a time for rejoicing, we got something and a great translation it is. Sure I might not understand how "the Halls are open" but an image has been set in my mind and I am sure it will be also in the minds of many, young and old. And how it can affect Joe and Mary Catholic with any imagery is important. I would say that we got as faithful a translation as we can hope for in the time frame given AND evocative in its own right…I'd say that this translation doe serve the good of the Church.