Here is the PrayTell release.
Full survey results are here.
My own comments are listed in the comment page.
I’m reprinting them below. They were initially 600 words, and I had to cut to 250.
These survey results initially surprised me. But I’ll admit my bias: I’m far happier with the new translation. I’m frequently moved by the new language. I’m friends with many young priests who fully agree.
Why would some priests disagree with this assessment? The survey lacks demographic data, but I suspect a generational split is at work here. It shouldn’t really be surprising that some priests of an older generation are annoyed. They came terms with one way, received vast amounts of catechesis along these lines, and developed a more casual liturgical style to go with it, and now they are told to do it another way. This creates a real tension: am I supposed to speak in the language of the people or not?
What is the purpose of liturgy? Is it primarily a community gathering centered on the needs of the people or is it a formalized prayer that strives to reach out of time and into eternity? The existing resources for liturgy do not fully agree on this crucial matter. The answer to this instability is to get to work on the remaining options and bring them into line with the new understanding and ethos.
One point that emerges here should serve as a warning sign. We find in this survey an intense suspicion about the process of translation itself, all stemming from excessive and pointless centralization and secrecy. Every process of revision could benefit from a more open approach.
>>Is it primarily a community gathering centered on the needs of the people or is it a formalized prayer that strives to reach out of time and into eternity?
Philosophically: I believe that those are not mutually exclusive understandings of the liturgy.
Practically: Working on the second is the best way to achieve both (as much as achievement is possible). Working on the first leads to failure on both counts.
I never trust these polls – for the following reason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
That was half a comment.
I'm sure that CMAA and NLM could commission their own survey and get the opposite result, based on whom they survey and how the questions are worded.
I'm afraid Pray Sniff and all its works are tainted by the same old suspects and their track record, Jeffrey, from the more intelligent among them such as the Hon. Prop., who put the SSPX to shame for their illiberal instincts, to the embarrassingly <a="hughosb.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/portsmouth-diocese-roman-missal-survey/">dim. I'm all for engagement, but in this case you're flogging a dead horse.
Let's try that markup again!
'm afraid Pray Sniff and all its works are tainted by the same old suspects and their track record, Jeffrey, from the more intelligent among them such as the Hon. Prop., who put the SSPX to shame for their illiberal instincts, to the embarrassingly <a="hughosb.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/portsmouth-diocese-roman-missal-survey/">dim. I'm all for engagement, but in this case you're flogging a dead horse.
No, the combox doesn't quite cope with markup. So let's try:
I'm afraid Pray Sniff and all its works are tainted by the same old suspects and their track record, Jeffrey, from the more intelligent among them such as the Hon. Prop., who put the SSPX to shame for their illiberal instincts, to the embarrassingly dim. I'm all for engagement, but in this case you're flogging a dead horse.
embarrassingly
<a="hughosb.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/portsmouth-diocese-roman-missal-survey/">dim.
I give up.
I love it, Ian! HTML dunna work here no mo'.
I think, however, that the personage you're trying to link to is already known to the readership here.
How's the diocese doing without this person's direct leadership, btw? This has escaped notice entirely over on this side of the pond.
"What is the purpose of liturgy? Is it primarily a community gathering centered on the needs of the people or is it a formalized prayer that strives to reach out of time and into eternity?"
Read SC, my friend. The worship of God. The sanctification of the faithful. There are many paths to nail that reality. It's not really so much about what you think clergy in the trenches are doing. They really want to bring people to God and God to the people. The esoterics of "recreating" heaven on earth–not so much.
And Ian, lol. Made my evening, dude. Maybe try being more polite and the combox gods will be more kind next time. I've never uttered my alt-title for *this* site. Even Charles hasn't heard it yet.
Todd
If only more liturgists read SC . . . . .
Anyway, remember this survey? It didn't make a splash because it showed overwhelming support (or, more likely, indifference) to the new translation. I guess it depends which survey you care to look at.
It's a different part of the country, Charles, so I have no direct experience. However, on a mundane level I can observe that no longer having to carry the significant overhead of a salaried lay politbureau (including office space for one member's publishing business) can only be good for the finances of a small diocese.
"The worship of God. The sanctification of the faithful." Amen, Todd.
"There are many paths to nail that reality." So let it all hang loose, eh? That does rather ignore the concept of tradition – the faith as received and developed over the millennia.
Well, if letting it all hang loose is your cup of tea, then go for it, my friend. Five attempts to post one thought shows persistence on that point, if anything.
Todd
"The worship of God. The sanctification of the faithful".
In my view, the new translation does neither of the above.
Who is the new translation aimed at?
The people who like it will not be using it, as they have their own mass which is in latin.
STILL? Are they still grizzling on about THIS?" says Father Z.
The survey is suspect as such, as it was produced by the College of St. Benedict/St John's University in Minnesota, a main proponent of the Liturgical Destruction from which we are starting to recover.
I have a little experience in this. I'm guilty of an M.S. in journalism. For my thesis, I did a survey of journalism students on a particular topic. This was done at five different universities, including my own. When I published my results, I named the universities where the survey was taken.
In contrast, here is how the current surveyors said where they collected their data: "The 32 participating dioceses are from all parts of the country and 12 of 14 Latin rite ecclesiastical regions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. States represented by participating dioceses are: CA, CO, FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, LA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NJ, NY, OH, TN, TX, WA, WI."
Sorry. Not sufficient. At minimum, the 32 dioceses should have been named.
And we're not even talking about self-selection and survey bias yet.
Another birdcage-liner publication, meant to disparage the return to the Sacred, the Beautiful, and the Universal in the Roman Catholic liturgy.
You ought to take up rugby, Todd. With you ability to dodge and weave I'd put you on the wing.
Poor generalisation, JQ. I like it. I usually attend a mass that's some or all English. I'm not alone in that.
Father Z, rofl. He made a personal cottage industry complaining about MR1.
Todd
And did a favor for every English-speaking Catholic. Even those who won't thank him for it.
"Lay politbureau" is good. After suggesting that persons like that same gentleman constitute a mandarinate, my posting privileges there were revoked.
Fr Z was not complaining about MR1, or indeed MR3 (the Editio Typica Tertia of the Missale Romanum appeared in 2002) but about the way it was translated (or not translated – it's a bit ironic that the compilers of the Novus Ordo trawled through ancient Sacramentaries to insert prayers which one needed to be cognizant of Latin to appreciate, since ICEL 1973 simply paraphrased them crudely).
I don't often attend Mass in the vernacular, but I appreciate that most people do, and in 2011 they actually heard the Mass of Paul VI for the first time.
I wouldn't mess with Father Z, he'd make mincemeat out of your arguments (if snark is considered an argument)