 |
| Ignaz von Dollinger |
Periodically when this site posts current and forthcoming versions of collects and other prayers, a commentator will post a third alternative from the Gray Book of 2008, the version of the Missal approved by English-speaking Bishops but heavily modified in the final version. As time goes on, this pre-release version will fade into memory, and, in fifty years, its existence will only be noted by specialists and liturgical historians. For now, however, there remain partisans of rejected drafts, and even partisans of the current Missal.
The most prominent statement of disagreement so far has come from an unlikely source: Fr. Anthony Ruff of St. John’s Abbey. If you are tempted to dismiss his letter as a progressive archetype, the surprise here is that Fr. Ruff is a specialist, and one of the world’s most learned, on Gregorian chant. He was involved in the writing of the USCCB’s document “Sing to the Lord” that provides the strongest endorsement of Gregorian chant from the U.S. Bishops in the postconciliar period.
He is the author of a magnificent book on the history of Church music, and as a consultant to the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, his contribution was to provide musical continuity by introducing English chant in a presentation far superior to the current Missal. This is no small contribution given how music has been such a lightening rod for controversy since even before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969/70.
The new translation holds out the promise of a tremendous upgrade in the music we hear at Mass, because there is already a large movement of new scholas in parishes and also because the new Missal edition is designed to be a singing edition with Gregorian stylings. Fr. Ruff has made a contribution in both areas, as a teacher of chant since the 1980s, and also as an advocate of the sung Mass deeply involved in Missal preparations.
And yet, now, he has written an open letter announcing that he cannot in good conscience be involved in training for the new Missal. “I’m sure bishops want a speaker who can put the new missal in a positive light, and that would require me to say things I do not believe.” He writes that his “involvement in that process, as well as my observation of the Holy See’s handling of scandal, has gradually opened my eyes to the deep problems in the structures of authority of our church.”
 |
| Fr. Anthony Ruff |
And what is this scandal to which he refers? He speaks of how “a small group” hijacked the translation “at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and mischief have marked this process..”
From here, he offers what might be considered a conventional “progressive” criticism of authority structures within the Catholic but it would be a mistake to conclude that, for he also speaks of his love of the Church and his desire “to stay in this church for life and do my best to serve her.” I have no doubt of his sincerity.
In short, this is not dissent as traditionally understood. What seems to be driving this announcement is more frustration with the process and a kind of demoralization associated with deep familiarity with the behind-the-scenes bureaucratic operations. Very few of us are in a position to dispute the facts here, which are undoubtedly associated with peculiar shift from the 2008 to the 2010 editions of the Missal translation. In a phrase, when one watches the sausage being made, one is likely to choose another breakfast option.
What the laity and most priests are thinking about right now has nothing to do with these issues. The big picture is, to my mind undeniable: we are being blest with transition from an inferior translation to one that is massively superior. The difference is dramatic, and somewhat surprising for those of us outside the process. I never expected this kind of progress in my lifetime. It’s like the new form of the Roman Rite has grown up.
What not generally known is how Fr. Ruff himself made a contribution even in fixing many of the problems that were first revealed in a draft that were later corrected in the final edition. Through his website Pray Tell, he aired many of the disputed passages, posted leaked documents, and generally agitated for improvements to restore many of the orations to a better condition. I do not know the details of what passages were fixed, but it is a fact that Fr. Ruff himself made a contribution here — and he paid a price by being labeled a critic and a leaker and thereby removed from the process as a result.
I’m fascinated by this chapter in liturgical history and Fr. Ruff’s reaction to it because so much of this reminds me of a much more dramatic chapter in Church history, Vatican I itself, which lasted from 1868 to 1870. Most Americans know nothing about the issues that drove this Council other than the conclusion that endorsed papal infallibility. It was the same even at the time of the Council itself, since the issues were mostly about political changes in Europe.
 |
| John Henry Cardinal Newman |
The American Bishops who were dragged to Rome for the meeting left dioceses that were war torn and desperately in need of money, attention, and leadership. Instead, they were required to board ships and sail overseas and, sleeping in tiny apartments by night and sitting listening to speeches in Latin that they could barely understand by day, all of which concerned issues that were mostly irrelevant for their pastoral work. This dragged on for two years. Their diaries speak of home sickness and physical sickness, long delays of boredom and deep anxiety about events back home.
From a European point of view, everything was at stake. It was initially unclear at the outset why Pius IX had called the council in the first place, but the truth would emerge in time. The problem concerned the rise of democratic movements, the push for more open societies, and the devastating loss of papal states that threaten the very “temporal power” that the Church had exercised for many centuries. Times were changing, and Pius IX was seeking reinforcement for that particular papal power, the announcement of which would have been devastating for the newly legalized Church in England and might have led to more political repression all over the continent.
These facts are nearly forgotten today. Since the Second Vatican Council, the absence of the temporal power is taken for granted: the Church’s power in this world is a moral and cultural power, one that arises from the persuasive power of the faith and not from the use of the sword. Indeed, Pius IX lost this debate at Vatican I too. The final declaration of infallibility was narrowly drawn to concern only faith and morals and not politics, contrary to what the Pope himself had demanded.
The reason for the failure of the “ultramonatists” can be traced to two brilliant men in particular: John Dalberg-Action and Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger. Acton was a cosmopolitan intellectual. Dollinger was Germany’s greatest theologian and perhaps the greatest theologian of the 19th century. Together, they were a powerful team, for Acton was his greatest student and a man of remarkable moral courage and erudition. They were both convinced “liberals” – which, in those days, meant that they were opponents of the temporal power (another example would be John Henry Newman, who similarly opposed the temporal power).
Neither had a direct role in Vatican I, but both exercised enormous influence. Acton got himself an apartment in Rome and ran a kind of headquarters of the opposition. He cranked out volumes of essays that agitated against the idea of the political infallibility of the Pope. More importantly, he became the primary conduit of leaks from the Council itself. Those in the Council were under strict obligation, punishable by excommunication, to keep all proceedings quiet. But one way or another, the information did not stay in the Vatican itself, thanks largely to Acton’s own efforts, which were heroic by any standard.
 |
| Lord Acton |
Dollinger, meanwhile, worked to organize the priests, Bishops, and theologians of Germany in opposition, and his role here was crucially important. He had a greater standing to speak on these issues than any living thinker in the Catholic world. He could move mountains with his words, and he worked to provide the arguments, the history, and theological cases against the temporal power. He stay constantly in touch with Acton and they plotted and worked day and night for two years.
Consider the final result of their efforts. Against their wishes, Vatican I did make a declaration of infallibility but one far more narrow than had been imagined at the outset. This was largely the responsibility of Acton and Dollinger (a fact that was well known to the Pope). But by then, and after years of bureaucratic struggle and difficulty, the lines had become too starkly drawn. It was hard to recognize a victory under these conditions, since the Council had seem to embrace the very thing they had oppose. In the heat of the moment, it might not have seen to be a victory at all, since it was true that the declaration did seem to enhance the power of the papacy. Emotions remained high and there were many scares from battle.
What I find particularly interesting here is how Acton and Dollinger each dealt with the aftermath. Both knew that they were at risk for complete excommunication if they spoke out against what a Church Council had declared. Though Lord Acton was bitter about the result (his victory was invisible; his failure very visible), he chose the quieter route and gradually reconciled himself to what had happened, seeing that he had played a role in preventing something worse. He ended up finally embracing the Council’s results and doing so in good conscience, recognizing that, in the end, the temporal power itself had failed to become part of Church teaching.
Dollinger, however, was not able to settle himself into this state of mind. He had been a giant of the opposition, a moral leader of thousands, and he knew that many looked to him to take the principled stand. He could not finally embrace the new teaching. Maybe it was his principles at work or perhaps it was his high status in intellectual circles, but regardless he chose a different route from Acton: he walked right into the blade. He experienced the deep pain of excommunication, eventually becoming a leading figure in a break-off sect called the Old Catholics.
Now, what is striking here is that Acton and Dollinger did not really disagree with each other. They just handled the reality of compromise in a different way, Between the two, Dollinger is the far more tragic figure. I’ve always imagined that he cried of heartache every night for ten years until his death in 1890, though he never recanted. Acton, meanwhile, moved on to other projects and other issues, avoiding theological polemics completely and becoming a full-time professor. He died in 1892, twelve years after the Council closed. Again, both had made a mighty contribution in their opposition, and one might even say that they were used by the Holy Spirit to guard the Church from error.
Even more striking is that the views of both Acton and Dollinger were essentially no different from what we believe in our times and what Pope Benedict XVI teaches as a settle matter of his papacy. Indeed, the rejection of the temporal power and the embrace of religious liberty is a theme that is repeated more often than any other in his pastoral addresses. Acton and Dollinger were both ahead of their times; Acton had the vision to see this and be wise and stable in his postconciliar strategic decisions; Dollinger did not see this and instead imagined that he would submit to martyrdom even if it means the end of all relations with the Church he loved.
Was Acton’s decision driven by humility or unprincipled compromise? What Dollinger’s decision driven by courage or pride?
On a much less dramatic level, all of us will likely be faced with similar dilemmas in dealing with Church. We can learn from the lives of those who came before. To me, Acton is the model. We must stay focused on the big picture. We must be willing, even, to submit, not matter how humbling it might be. It can be the hardest thing we are ever asked to do, and perhaps this is easy for me to say because as a laymen and an outsider, nothing of this magnitude has ever been asked of me, but I hope if that day comes, I can reflect on the lives of these 19th century figures and how their choices look more than a century later.
The process of the production of the new translation has been sticky, messy, bureaucratic, and even demoralizing to some. It has also produced a Missal that will spark a new chapter in Church history, one that is likely to be characterized by beauty, evangelism, and increasing levels of artistic creativity. It is time for us all to look at the big picture, embrace the translation, put our interests aside, let bygone be bygones, and look to making a contribution to make the future better than the immediate past. That is the best of all possible worlds for which we can hope in this vale of tears.
(Thank you to Arlene Oost-Zinner for comments on the thesis and argument here, and one anonymous commentator as well.)
With all due respect to the Benedictine, I find this particular point startling:
"When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity…"
This translation was a far more open and transparent process than the one imposed in 1970. Episcopal conferences had the right to make changes and alterations to the work, and there was actually a committee of Anglophone bishops and cardinals overseeing the work of ICEL.
If this process lacked consultation among priests and laity – it was the failure of Episcopal conferences and the bishops to consult rather than the Holy See. In any case, maybe this lack of "consultation" was for good reason. The vast majority of Catholics, due to the massive collapse of catechesis, do not hold orthodox belief. To ask them for their opinion is no better than asking a similarly uninformed protestant/liberal humanist/etc.
I don't see what the issue is with ensuring strict doctrinal integrity at the expense of upsetting a few people who somehow believe the Church is a democracy.
As for this idea that he raises that the authority of the Church, or as he aptly terms, "central authority" should somehow be seen to be accountable to you and me – well that is a complete nonsense. The Church is a hierarchy not a democracy. The authority is accountable to God.
I'm sorry but while the monk may have done good work, that does not negate his erroneous views on the authority of the Church (and his overly optimistic assessment on the orthodoxy of the laity and clergy).
I wish people would quit moaning and obey and submit to the Church. We didn't get what we wanted – could it be that…gasp…we were wrong and the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship is right??! Now there's a concept.
And just an addendum to the above:
Fr Ruff's letter suggests that he is withdrawing from lecturing on the new translation because he cannot support it positively.
All well and good. That is right and proper to do so. Why this letter to a notably dissenting publication then?
One would hope that the diocesan bishops, his religious superiors, and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life will sanction him for his public dissent against legitimate authority.
Thanks, Jeffrey; you're probably right. The lesson for those who have witnessed this sorry saga (vicariously, at least) is not to expect supernatural perfection from an institution bearing such glaring marks of human imperfection. Whether our response is to be humbly submissive or respectfully critical is perhaps a matter of taste. Fr Ruff has my admiration.
Dear Anonymous #1:
It is to be hoped that the ambitious clerics who took it upon themselves to produce the endless howling gaffes in the new translation as it has come back Vox Clarified will be banished from all further liturgical work.
Shame on you for lambasting Father Ruff while giving a complete pass to those cretins, who turned a translation done in fidelity to LA and RT into an object of ridicule and an instrument of divisiveness. He has only said out loud what -believe me- even bishops (and not just a few of them) are saying privately. Where are Cardinal Pell and Archbishop DiNoia in all this? Has no one the courage equal to this monk?
If Fr Ruff had only stopped at criticising the translation itself then that is not such a slap in the face, from one who considered Fr Ruff an orthodox Catholic before this.
As it is, Fr Ruff has questioned AUTHORITY. And as is clear, the crisis in the Church stems from a failure of Authority and Orthodoxy.
He goes so far as to dismiss the top-down process of the translation, when of course, the nature of the Church is itself top-down. There is a reason why there are superiors. It's no good just acknowledging people as our spiritual superiors without at the same time acknowledging ourselves as INFERIOR.
I really don't understand the analogy here, unless you're saying that Fr. Ruff is acting a lot like Dollinger.
I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a "liberal vs. conservative" thing … and IMHO, saying "And with your spirit" at Mass is no reason to "weep" (Cf. Anthony Ruff's letter, above). It is true he was left out of the process, and I've heard from inside sources he was very hurt by this. But, it seems a little overboard to "weep" over saying, "and with your spirit."
I was at the Southwest Liturgical Conference in Salt Lake City, which just ended. I signed up, eagerly, to his talk. Here is the blurb: "The Importance of Sung Prayer: A Fresh Look at Music in the Liturgy. Historically, the spoken liturgy is an anomaly. This session, will explore the theology of sung prayer, particularly the parts of liturgy sung by priests/deacons, with some demonstration,
rehearsal with those present, and including new chant tones from the new missal."
Well, the last part didn't really happen because of a glitch. And Fr. Ruff was funny at times, and self-deprecating at others (he often bemoaned his lack of singing skills). But he began by dropping the bombshell of his open letter in America, and his reasoning. So the focus ended up mostly on recent events, not the Missal, which I do not believe he would have intended, but which happened anyway.
I do believe Fr. Ruff was extremely disappointed in the process, and felt shut out, and hurt by what he felt were rejections of his input, and a translation that lacked beauty, in his eyes.
While I appreciated his candor, this was not the time nor place to do so. Actually, a good number of the presenters were disappointing, because of their axes to grind, not necessarily because of their content. It is like attending a college lecture by a brilliant scientist, and he spends the first 15 minutes kvetching about the administration and the deans.
I hope the Anglophone bishops will support Fr. Anthony Ruff and petition the Holy Father immediatley to put off the implementation of this piece of truly disappointing and mediocre workmanship until further study and discussion.
The bishops of the English speaking world need to show the backbone and the resolve the German hierarchy exhibited in rejecting their missal.
"This translation was a far more open and transparent process than the one imposed in 1970."
The benchmark is 1998, not 1970.
"It's no good just acknowledging people as our spiritual superiors without at the same time acknowledging ourselves as INFERIOR."
Are the superiors responsible to THEIR superiors?
In Cardinal Pell's letter to the Bishops the Vox Clara Study Text, he writes: "Such participation is possible only when the rich patrimony of Roman liturgical expression is rendered as 'a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer', which has been 'translated integrally and in the most exact manner' (Liturgiam authenticam, no. 20). Thanks to the extraordinary labors of Bishops and their collaborators across the English-speaking world, the Church now stands on the verge of implementing just such a text."
But that's simply not true. People who worked on the 2008 translation reported that Cardinal Pell did NOT want "astáre coram te" in Eucharistic Prayer II translated "to stand in your presence," because people might thus justify not kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer. So "to stand" was replaced by "to be." Thus, not "in a most exact manner."
It's this kind of monkey-business and hypocrisy that Father Ruff dared to point out on Pray Tell. That's why they fired him. For a similar public critique they fired Canon Alan Griffiths of the UK.
Who's running the Congregation anyhow? Cardinal Hosni Mubarak?
There has been some controversy about Anon. comments, and it seems like this thread might be the place to draw the line. I'm asking that all future commentators please name themselves or risk deletion. Open access is one thing but provide a forum for detraction or calumny is another.
I was also at the Southwest Liturgical Conference; however, I was not in attendance at the session where Fr. Ruff made his announcement, but a newly made acquaintance who did attend that session informed me. When I returned home that night, I was crying on the inside. My internal tears were caused by the possibility that a voice, whether or not we agreed with what was say, was going to be silenced. IMVHO, that's not right.
My parish's music director and I spoke to him briefly before his presentation today (and he did make mention of his actions again before he delved into his topic). I told him while sometimes the best we can do is agree to disagree, the need to listen to all sides of a discussion still stands. And while we are on opposite sides at times, I believe he appreciated my sentiments.
I am very much a neophyte in liturgy and chant matters and want to learn. Because of that, I need to work very hard at examiming what's going on in this interesting part of the Church's life. Because I know where lies my bias, I also hope I have a healthy amount of skepticism for statements made by friend and foe alike.
What I seek is the truth. And a satisfactory answer to the question "what's really going on here" will not be determined for quite a while. I just don't have all the information.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
So what? He was left out of the process? The new missal is "unsatisfactory"?? on what basis? That it restores the transcendent elements of the Mass that were stripped from the Mass in the 1960-70's? That it attempts to correct many of the problems with clarity of doctrine in the current translation?
Rararar its not perfect English. Rararar its not in Latin. Rararar I'm Martin Luther and posting my thesis' on your door.
Are any of us, laity or monastics, really in a position to criticize the Holy See? In terms of our hierarchal status, certainly not… but more importantly… in terms of this papacy in particular… should we really be criticizing our Holy Father for his handling of "scandal" like this? Look at the number of things he could be legislating according to his own predispositions, and compare that to the number of things he has made absolute changes to in our faith. That EF may be celebrated by any priest willing (and knowledgeable) to do so? What an extraordinary abuse of power! Obviously there is much more on Benedict's "agenda" which he patiently lets go on without papal legislation… and yet here is this massive controversy because a monk decides to criticize the Holy See?
A load, if you ask me. But then again, I'm not a brother. Then again, a brother is not the pope.
That's all I can say.
Thank you for this article.
The faithful remain faithful to our Lord and His Holy Church, the visible head, which our Lord instituted and promised to stay until the end.
Let God decide whether she is doing it right or wrong. Our duty is not to gossip about her and stir up and confuse the faithful.
Read more about the saints and learn how they handled their sayings. The dissent is not our examples.
Todd:
"The benchmark is 1998, not 1970."
There is no 1998 translation. That project was comprehensively rejected by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, not on the grounds of aesthetics but on even more important grounds – compatibility with Catholic dogma. I don't see how one can use a FAILED project that was judged to be at odds with orthopraxis as a standard for anything. That's like using the Lutheran Communion Service as a standard against which to judge the Roman Missal.
Just another thought:
"Finally, I should like to speak to you about two specific matters that affect your episcopal ministry at this time. One is the imminent publication of the new translation of the Roman Missal. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for the contribution you have made, with such painstaking care, to the collegial exercise of reviewing and approving the texts. This has provided an immense service to Catholics throughout the English-speaking world. I encourage you now to seize the opportunity that the new translation offers for in-depth catechesis on the Eucharist and renewed devotion in the manner of its celebration. “The more lively the eucharistic faith of the people of God, the deeper is its sharing in ecclesial life in steadfast commitment to the mission entrusted by Christ to his disciples” – Benedict XVI in his address to the Bishops of England, Wales and Scotland, Oscott College.
First he said 1. the work involved in the new translation is an immense service to the Catholic Church and 2. that we should view this new translation as an opportunity for indepth catechesis.
I don't see Fr Ruff doing the second. Instead he has written openly that he will NOT do the second. Therefore he is in OPEN DEFIANCE and DISOBEDIENCE against the authority of the Holy Father. That's something to think about.
It's one thing to be less than happy about the new translation. It's another to be dismissive of the wishes of the Pope.
"Are the superiors responsible to THEIR superiors?"
Given that the superior of the Holy Father is God, I would say yes.
Jeffrey, this article is simply excellent, fair and balanced and with all the right nuances and Christian (Catholic) charity. The historical analysis is superb and your final thoughts very wise and pastoral. Thank you very much!
Fr. Allan J. McDonald
Justin, as one who supports the implementation of MR3 and subsidiarity to authority, I believe your comparison of the Holy Father's exhortation serving as a platform by which you excoriate Fr. Ruff plays "fast and loose" with both their statements. Fr. Ruff's withdrawl from public discussion/catechesis does not constitute disobedience on his part. One could argue convincingly that by not adding the distractions that would inevitably arise were he to be engaged in public discourse, resulting from a complex and vexing history, would actually be more detrimental to the process than a self imposed discipline that he simply picks up the pom poms (HT to Todd) and vocally champions the implementation. C'mon, we need to be real. To question his fealty with your tenuous contention stands in stark contrast with the eloquent points Jeffrey Tucker made in his article. Humility, refection, and even restraint…are virtues we all need to practice, and don't necessarily disqualify us from being part of the Church Militant.
"There is no 1998 translation."
There is too. And the CDWDS is not "Sacred," by the way.
Agreed with Jeffrey. The last thing this site needs is an uprising of anonymoi. Be an adult about it and sign your name. Failing that, contact the site host and make a case for remaining pseudonymous. If you don't want your spouse, kids, parents, confessor, boss or the pope to know whay you're saying, perhaps you shouldn't be saying it.
Bottom line: we don't need anonymous comments on the internet.
Fr. Ruff's public stance invites public response. One can well imagine that there might be "deceptions" in the Vatican (e.g., Cardinal Sodano conspiracy with Maciel), it being populated by "men like us in all things." But I distrust the "Americanist" overtones of vague denunciations against "Rome." It is at best grossly and imprudently destructive, especially when it so readily serves those who sanctimoniously throw wood on the fire lit against Pope Benedict, whether that was also intended or not. The concern for "accountability to the larger church" doesn't inspire trust or confidence. That means whatever anyone with a disagreement wants it to mean, and for practical purposes that's all it has ever and will ever mean. As to receiving the new liturgical translation, one can rejoice that after 40 years the English speaking Church has rejoined Italy, France, Germany, Spain et al and returned to the ancient apostolic greeting "and with your spirit," while at the same time wincing that Cardinal Pell changed "stand in" to "be in." But I excuse Cardinal Pell, as he was striving for the sense that, "at the name of Jesus, every knee should bend." Fr. Ruff is way out of line conflating the "scandal" of the sex abuse crisis with his disagreements, however right or wrong, about the translation process. The editors of America, however, are pleased that he has conflated them, I have no doubt.
I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a "liberal vs. conservative" thing
Anon… It's very much a matter of a "liberal vs. conservative" thing. Although the actual translation is difficult to see as a "conservative" or "liberal" translation (I would just say it is a good translation), there is no getting around the very close relationship between those who would be readily identifiable as "progressive or liberal" in their views on the Church and liturgy, and those who oppose the new translation on one hand, and those who would be readily identifiable as "conservative or traditional" in their views on the Church and liturgy, and those who support the new translation on the other hand. Although I might say that not all who oppose the new translation are "liberal or progressive", I would say that most who are "liberal or progressive" oppose the new translation. Same goes for the "conservative or traditional" view. There is no getting around this fact.
The new translation threatens something in the progressive view… I imagine I know what that "something" is, but I will avoid the derailing of this thread by saving that for another time.
Todd;
Yes, there indeed was a 1998 translation. But it was rejected, so I think it's a bit odd to refer to the 1970 (accepted) translation, the 1998 (rejected) translation, the 2008 (changed) translation and the 2010 (accepted) translations as being the same types of events. They aren't. Only two of them (1970 and 2010) are actual approved translations. As was noted before, and as I have said before, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to hold up as a model the process that led to a failed translation. We would ordinarily call that a failing model.
Provocative article, Jeffrey.
The Raison d'etre for comments is so that we can all explore the interesting points the author brings up. If someone chooses to do so anonymously, that does not make that person a scoundrel or a coward. If his or her comments prove unseemly in some way, it is up to one of a group of administrators to delete them or not. I don't think a blanket ban on anonymous comments really does anyone any good.
It is a good rule of thumb for everyone, named or anonymous, to exercise Christian charity when it comes to making judgments about contemporary institutions and scholars. We have the benefit of the lens of history when explicating the causes and effects, motivations and legacies of Vatican I, Döllinger, and Acton. But we don't have the benefit of the same re: Ruff and his recent activities.
Someone I know laid out his theory of history to me that I have been puzzling about for some weeks: there is no such thing as history, really. All we have are stories that we create based on existing data. I understand his point on one level, the relativist level. But I reject the idea to a large extent because it fails to take into account two things: time (as we know it, not God's time) and external factors unknown to the storyteller.
I suppose we know about as much as we can know about Vatican I right now. We have the benefit of a century and half of wisdom and subsequent events to help share our interpretation. Even so, we still don't know the whole story and never will. We should probably wait a century or so before making broader claims about or condemning the motives and actions of those among us, including Ruff and all of the players in Rome and beyond, who have been working at ground zero on the new Missal.
"The benchmark is 1998, not 1970."
Well the thugs that imposed the 1970 translations are now crying foul because their world view and dominance is being rejected and don't like it one darn bit. There is no one more illiberal than a liberal and Todd's comment just proves the point. A closed process is fine when it promotes "progressivism" but a crime against nature when a process, closed or not, promotes "traditionalism." Liberals, whether in religion or politics, keep moving the goal posts when they are losing the debate. The 60s are over. Get over it.
Todd, is that your real name? how do I know who you are just by saying Todd.
If the last option of this site, Anonymous, becomes abusive, the authority will get rid of it. Probably the "whatever' option is not as good as others, but it's easy and quick 🙂 This sounds very familiar with selecting the music for the Mass.
I'll sign as T, how's that.
Fwiw, T works for me. As long as everyone keeps the same avatar, the conversation makes sense. When there are half a dozen, possibly distinct, people named Anonymous, it's impossible to know who is saying what.
"I think it's a bit odd …"
I disagree. The point of comparison was made about the degree of consultation in the translation and development process of the Roman Missal. There was a wide degree of give and take among bishops, clergy, liturgists, and ICEL for the 1998 Missal. I wasn't making a point about what was given the recognitio or not. It seems more odd of you, Chiro, to jump in on a discussion and criticize after switching topics.
T, that pseudonym is fine with me, as long as the blog hosts are satisfied. All you have to do is click on my name and you'll find out who I am, where I live, how to e-mail me, and if you care to follow links or google search from there, you can even e-mail my pastor.
You and others might not care to be so open, but I have no problem with it. I have nothing to hide.
Anonymous can be a problem, as Kathy points out, because it makes the discussion confusing. But just because someone chooses to remain anonymous doesn't mean that he has something to hide.
Besides, our culture is full too full of Googling people and Facebooking and Twittering. Sometimes you just want to hear an opinion or a different point of view – and maybe you don't care who the person is. Up with privacy!
Todd, you can't tell us about all that consultation in 1970 because it was a liberal diktat. You know the old saying "what goes around comes around!"
Thank you for this post! It has been an enlightening read. This is a sad situation in many ways, and I feel for Fr. Ruff. I thought the relational link to the scandals was a red herring, but understandably mitigated considering the personal investment he put into his work. I would like to beg your patience and quote this from the Holy Father to the Italian Bishops last November, adding a couple of comments in brackets:
Dear brothers in the episcopate, your coming together places at the center of the work of the assembly an examination of the Italian translation of the third standard edition of the Roman Missal. The correspondence of the prayer of the Church (lex orandi) and the rule of faith (lex credendi) shapes the thought and sentiment of the Christian community, giving form to the Church, the body of Christ and the temple of the Spirit. Human expression can never stand completely outside of its time, even when, as in the case of the liturgy, it constitutes a window that opens to what is beyond time. Giving expression to a perennially valid reality therefore demands a wise balance of continuity and newness, of tradition and revitalization. [I think Fr. Ruff would say he attempted this, but at the same time, I presume good faith on the part of the bishops and "Rome"]
The Missal itself takes it place within this process. Every true reformer, in fact, is obedient to the faith: [It seems to me that Fr. Ruff falls within that realm of obedience.]: he does not act in an arbitrary manner, he does not appropriate any discretion over the rite; he is not the owner, but the custodian of the treasury instituted by the Lord and entrusted to us. The whole Church is present in every liturgy: adhering to its form is a condition of authenticity for what is celebrated
I think that is the problem with many of us celebrants and liturgists: we really do take pride, often justifiably so, in the work that we do in celebrating the Rite. With the Holy Father, I believe that we are but custodians. This does not mean that someone might love the Rite less than someone who might have more claim to ownership of what is celebrated, but that the danger of breaking Communion is greater when we take too much ownership. Just my two cents.
The 1998 translation was given a massive FAIL by the Catholic Church. Why do people therefore keep insisting it be used as some sort of model then? If the outcome was deficient, it probably stands that the process was deficient.
Given all the above, it seems fitting that the 2010 translation did NOT use the 1998 translation as some sort of benchmark but as a way of examining what went wrong there and take steps not to repeat the failures of 1998.
I agree with AOZ's point that problems of relative perspective make Jeffrey's argument difficult to judge.
I would add that discussion of Fr. Ruff's opinions and actions frequently suffers from confusion of focus, when people fail to distinguish between three different issues: the theologically liberal opinions he seems to support through his website; his criticism of the way the Church as an organisation has done things; and issues of translation of liturgical texts. While I recognise there can be an overlap between the three, I also believe Fr. Ruff hasn't done himself or his arguments any favours by failing sufficiently to distinguish between them. It gives the impression of a lack of clarity that's difficult to explain in a competent scholar, without suggesting that the temper of events simply got the better of him, as it does most of us from time to time.
As far as I am aware, Ignaz von Döllinger refused to officially join the sect of the Old-Catholics. He was excommunicated and did not recant because he felt that he could not do so in good conscience, but he never became an open schismatic.
Lautensack, yes, this is true. He was a leader but not an actual member.
The temporal power of the papacy was essential in maintaining its independence at a time when Italy was the cockpit of Europe, especially in the years 1494 to 1525. That same independence appeared threatened at the time of the Risorgimento and loyal Catholics, including many Irish, were prepared to fight and die for it.
I wish people would stop talking about a new Missal. It's only a more accurate translation of the Missal of 1970 which Bugnini himself envisaged lasting only twenty years. The phrase "astare coram te et tibi ministrare" occurs in EP II which is the one used by priests who have preached for too long and want to get the rest of the Mass over with as soon as possible. It's a truncated version of the so-called Canon of Hippolytus which liturgical scholars no longer believe to have ever been an anaphora.
When we do get a new Missal, which will be sometime this century and sooner than most people think, a lot of the 1970 stuff will be discarded (in the case of the Offertory prayers not a moment too soon) and the translators will have to start all over again. Their task will be made somewhat easier because I suspect that Latin will be obligatory for the greater part of it.
"The 1998 translation was given a massive FAIL by the Catholic Church. Why do people therefore keep insisting it be used as some sort of model then?"
Well, it was approved by every English-speaking bishop's conference. That's not failure. Seventeen years of consultation across the English-speaking Catholic population. Doesn't sound like a failure to me.
The reason given in Rome why it was deep-sixed is that MR3 was nearly ready. Stick with MR1, they said–it's been good enough for almost thirty years, they said.
You can say MR2 was slow, but you can't say it was a failure.
"If the outcome was deficient, it probably stands that the process was deficient."
A perfect description of MR3. Everybody's happy except the clergy, the pink-slipped consultants, real language experts, the South Africans, the publishers, and pretty soon millions of Catholics.
Todd,
I've yet to meet a clergyman who is not thrilled by everything he's seen of MR3.
Of course it doesn't matter, because I'm not going to post my name, so you're not going to listen to me anyway. You'll just continue speaking for all of the alleged upset parties, even though I've yet to hear anything of the dissent you speak of. PrayTell types notwithstanding.
I see the Furies got loose again…
Wide consultation does not guarantee a good translation. 1998 may have been approved by all the bishops conferences but it was rejected by Rome for many legitimate reasons. Do we really have to rehearse them all here yet again?
Let's just say it reads like a compromise translation – striving for accuracy but with too much the flavor of the discredited 1970 translation.
Sam, I'm interested in seeing your documentation on that rejection. My recollection, and I'm open to correction on this, is that the public reason given was that MR3 was nearly completed, and that MR2 would be a lame duck.
I can appreciate objections to any particular version of the Roman Missal. Internet commentators from Fr Z to me have objected to no small number of gaffes.
Accuracy is vastly overrated as a theological virtue.
All that being said, I raised the point that 1998 was far more consultative when someone else pointed out that 2008/2010 was no less consulted about than 1970/1975.
I can appreciate a little squirming when difficult points are brought up, but the truth of it is that we weren't seeing MR2 protests coming from pastors, ICEL consultants, German bishops, monks, theologians, liturgists, or South Africans. Granted it was before the Age of Internet and its ever-present anonymoi.
Excellent article, and many excellent comments. Justin, in particular, makes a number of strong points.
I am sorry that Fr. Ruff finds himself unable to participate in the catechetical work which is needed. But more, I am deeply disappointed at his stated reasons for withdrawal. As already observed in another comment, his resentment of the authority of the Holy See places him at odds with Church. It also pretty well invalidates his other comments.
Contrary to some who have commented, it is not clear form Fr. Ruff's letter that "And with your spirit" is the cause of his weeping; that is simply hyperbole, and does not advance the discussion. However, it is clear that all the elements of MR3 to which I have been exposed are hugely superior to their counterparts in MR1. The 1970 translation is embarrassingly poor, and is long overdue for retirement.
What seems to be a core element of Fr. Ruff's concerns is his apparent sense that the national councils of bishops have some right which cannot be overridden by the Holy See. The Church is not a democracy, has never been, and must never be so debased.
Bill,
Resentment is an emotion. Can you prove it? All I read from Fr Ruff is dissatisfaction, which is more an intellectual position. One of the foremost American teachers and promoters of Gregorian chant is on the outs. I'm sure that is a cause for consternation for many. The next thing we'll hear is that Fr Ruff secretly plays death metal and gangsta rap in his cell.
"The 1970 translation is embarrassingly poor, and is long overdue for retirement."
And yet it was approved by the authority of both the Holy See and the world's English speaking bishops. I would not say that your criticism of MR1 is full of resentment, and therefore your whole comment is invalid.
"The Church is not a democracy, has never been, and must never be so debased."
Guess someone should inform the College of Cardinals.
I can appreciate an intellectual defense of MR3. What is tedious is the emotional appeal to nullify the opposition when the arguments in favor of MR3 are so hard to come by. Such tacks would not be graded well in high school debate.
I heard Fr. Anthony's announcement last Friday at the SWLC. It was clear, concise, and to the point. The point being that he is not going to be speaking in support of the new missal for the reasons he clearly gives in his open letter to the bishops. I respect Fr. Anthony immensely and fully agree with everything he has written in his letter. The new missal is linguistically flawed to the point of being illiterate in places. How can theological truths be understood if the language used to express them is incomprehensible and confusing?
Thank you Fr. Anthony for stating what others have not.
Todd,
I'm sure you are familiar with the Observations attached to the June 2002 letter from the CDW to various bishops conferences:
http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html
Some excerpts:
"The ordering of the texts has departed almost entirely from that of the Missale Romanum"
"The rich language of supplication found in the Latin texts is radically reduced in the translation."
"The language often lapses into sentimentality and emotionality in place of the noble simplicity of the Latin."
"Frequently there are important words translated either in an inadequate manner, or not at all."
I think Rome was particularly annoyed that ICEL persisted in doing things that were objected to previously (see http://www.adoremus.org/CritiqueOrdRitual1997.pdf where there are similar observations.)
"but the truth of it is that we weren't seeing MR2 protests coming from pastors"
Ten or more years ago most people (myself included) were resigned to more of the same from ICEL. We never thought that Rome would take the decisive step of reforming ICEL and issuing Liturgiam Authenticam. This emboldened a whole new generation of Catholics. I think you underestimate the reaction a MR2/1998-style translation would spark today.
Todd,
The College of Cardinals was not elected through a democratic process by us laypeople. Therefore, the Church is not a democracy.
Mr. Tucker,
Thank you for your summary of the history of Acton's and Dollinger's involvement at Vatican I. It is very useful to someone new to the Catholic Church such as myself.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
"The new missal is linguistically flawed to the point of being illiterate in places."
Really? I'd be interested in some examples.
I was fully prepared to accept that Father Ruff was not the typical liturgical liberal, until I perused "Pray Tell," which seems to take issues very much from a liturgically liberal perspective. And, yes, it's true that the Collegeville Benedictines still sing chant, but they are also quite liberal from a liturgical perspective. And, the bunker church…well, the less said, the better.
But there's something that Father Ruff said that brings up a very sensitive issue–one that is painful to discuss–but I can't let it pass.
Father Ruff says that he was disturbed by "Holy See’s handling of scandal". I'm sorry, but if any player in the scandal that might drive people out of the Church it's the Collegeville Benedictines. It's no secret that they've been anything but principled or disciplined when it comes to such matters.
Rather than resenting the Holy See for not being proactive enough in stopping the crisis, Father Ruff might ask why his order was so active in contributing to it.
By the way, thanks to Jeffrey for the very informative article. Can anyone recommend a good book on Vatican I?
I've spent some time in the last few days trying to understand why this post really seems off to me. It's not just seeing Fr. Ruff's photo with that of Cardinal Newman, or the so-far unsupported claim that Pray Tell has had any good effect on the final Missal.
Here is what bothers me. Although granted that in the fog of current events it is difficult to understand exactly what is going on, I do have a theory about what is going on, and it is about as far removed from Vatican I as possible.
What if this is what is going on: For the last 50 years, the bishops have been dominated by lay experts of a certain theological bent. For example, a lay commission might hand bishops a fait accompli liturgical translation and ask them for a straight up-or-down vote. Now that is not consultative.
On the other hand, what if the bishops have 10,000 changes to make to a complex document, and disgruntled lay experts, who were not consulted, are miffed about it. They pretend to be shocked, shocked. But in fact they are miffed.
Vatican I defined the teaching office of the papacy. Vatican II defined the teaching office of the bishops. The process at hand, it seems to me, is a mature expression of these charisms.
I don't see what is confusing here. PrayTell was the forum that aired the complaints about the leaked Missal and posted the documents that led to improvements on the final Missal. I thought everyone knew that. The history of Vatican I here explores various reactions to emotionally charged moments in Church history and the need to finally suck it up, be silent, and move on.
"PrayTell was the forum that aired the complaints about the leaked Missal and posted the documents that led to improvements on the final Missal. I thought everyone knew that."
I don't think anyone "knows" this. They leaked, they complained, they agitated–but where is the documentation for any cause-effect relationship?
Fine, Kathy, I've said all I'm going to say. If you don't agree, that's fine too.
Anyways, Jeffrey, I just wanted to clarify that what was getting under my skin was not the thesis of your argument, which I agree with in large part–Lord Acton played the better role after the process was complete. I agree with you there.
What was troubling me most was a peripheral matter having to do with the resonances of the Vatican I issues. The Pray Tell party line is that "Rome" is bossing around the bishops. I would like to make the contrary assertion: the Vatican's role in the Vox Clara intervention was explicitly for the sake of episcopal authority.
Jeffrey: while we’re on niggling points, your suggestion that we should not dismiss Fr. Ruff’s letter as “a progressive archetype” because its author “is a specialist … on Gregorian chant” has been working away inside my shoe. I don’t see a necessary correlation between a love of chant and theological position. Much of the Church of England is musically and ritually conservative, yet theologically liberal. True, that pattern is less evident in the Catholic Church, but it’s not unknown. I’m not suggesting here that Fr. Ruff is a progressive archetype – that’s a different conversation 🙂 – merely suggesting the possibility of category confusion.
Chris in Maryland is correct: he chose to make a public statement (when it would have been better to write the bishops directly). It is only natural, then, that people will take him to task when he plays fast and loose with the facts.
BJA asked for examples. Here are a couple. This is from Prayer of the Faithful Advent Year A Intercessions: "O God, who judge works of darkness. . ." ; again from the same source Year C: "O God, who have done great things. . ."
These examples are both grammatically incorrect; yes, I would go as far as to say illiterate. The first should be: O God, who judges . . .
The second should be: O, God who has done . . .
If these examples I have quoted are not grammatically incorrect, then my education is incomplete.
While I fully understand the attempt to be faithful to the Latin original, there needs to be sensitivity to the nuances of the English language. Not everything can be translated word by word and have a quality translation. While that could be incorrectly interpreted as arrogance, it isn't. If we want good liturgy then we need to have good liturgical texts regardless of the language in which they are written.
I am curious about the French, Spanish and German translations. Are they fraught with the lack of understanding that is exhibited in some of the English texts?
Could someone enlighten me on this?
Myron
The usage reflects an archaism about agreement between a second person vocative pronoun and a verb. Your suggested usage represents contemporary usage, which ditches the agreement rule (agreement rules in English were actually somewhat flexible until the widespread use of dictionaries and print media and literacy in the 19th century – one might call them schoolmarm English, but they are not essential to good English grammar except for the folks who can't abide untidy language, which English most definitely is by its nature).
I sang one of these "schoolmarm" expressions at a funeral today, straight out the groovy section of the hymnal, verse 5 of I Am the Bread of Life.