At the Chant Cafe, Jeffery Tucker has an article, The Spectacular Success of the New Missal Translation. He quotes "Mikey" I mean, Father Anthony Ruff, the Benedictine priest at St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, MN who hated the corrected translation and has been trying to foment rebellion towards it and the "monarchy" of the Church's Magisterium in posts and others articles but has had a "come to Jesus conversion experience" yesterday with the corrected English translation of the Holy Mass implementation at the Abbey:
"I suspect that many people who had doubts coming into this project have changed their minds already. In the New York Times today, Fr. Anthony Ruff is quoted with extremely critical remarks to the journalist: "The syntax is too Latinate, it’s not good English that will help people pray," But on his blog today,(Pray Tell) he writes: “It all went quite well at the abbey, and I was struck by the beauty of the liturgy.... Overall, I liked it much more than I expected."
What was your conversion experience yesterday with the Corrected English translation of the Mass?
Does this entire uproar over the changes in the new missal appear to be a tempest in a teapot to anyone else? The changes are few and easy to learn, and I do not believe that the vast majority of the complaining laity have either the Latin or theological background to make substantive, intelligent criticisms. This leads me to believe that most of this hoopla is being fomented by dissident Priests and Bishops. I notice it was headlines for some of the media outlets, doubtless hoping to sieze upon another conflict within the Church to use as a weapon against her. The fires of Hell will surely be stoked with the bodies of journalists...
I attended Mass out of town yesterday, and the Priest actually paused the congregation after each new section to praise them and compare them to how the people at other Masses had done..."Now, that was pretty good. You guys get a B plus. The nine o'clock Mass only got a C." This was actually during the Creed! I swear, too many times I attend Mass somewhere else I want to get up and run screaming back to St. Jo's. Christ have mercy!
From Rorate Caeli: "So what will essentially change in the English-speaking world with the new-new translation of the new-new-new-Missal? Nothing. Not a single one of the new problems is lost in translation, for they are not translation problems. Those (very) few communities where there was a solemn celebration will keep having them. The rest will remain with whatever they have. The multiplicity of everything, including the heart of the Sacrifice, the "Eucharistic Prayers"? They are there. Anthropocentric behavior and showmanship? They are there. Communion in the hand? It is there. A crowded sanctuary? There. "Extraordinary Ministers"? There. Cataclysmic? Disastrous? Calamitous? The Novus Ordo may be described in many ways. We have another word for its translations: irrelevant."
In my barren Post-Vatican II Church, the New Translation seemed out of place. Knowing the Priest, the Prayers sounded strange coming out his mouth. Yet, as awkward as it was, it is still an improvement. Let's pray that this is a beginning to liturgical reform, not an end.....
After years or resenting the delays, after years of responding "and with your spirit" under my breath, I found myself saying, "And also with you" twice!
Yes, it's an improvement. But as observed, a lot of the New Mass problems still coexist with this improvement. The most hopeful thing is that it was certainly not the disaster our more liberal priests feared it would be. Hopefully they will stop wearing their resentment on their shirtsleeves.
I was, and continue to be, struck by the fact that as the Novus ordo moves "back towards Tradition" it essentially admits by default what everyone in the Church seems unwilling to admit publicly. That being that the No was, is, and remains, a bad idea, whose only hope of salvation is to return it incrementally back towards the TLM.
You can't make a silk purse from a sows ear my friends.
Why exactly do we need a "new and improved" English translation? We already had a perfectly precise translation in the 1962MR, side by side with the Latin too I might add. Come on and admit it, the Traditionalists have been right all along.
Tradition is the living faith of the dera. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.
@pinan-godan-525: "....Now, that was pretty good. You guys get a B plus. The nine o'clock Mass only got a C. ...."
We had Cdl. McCarrick as the celebrant for our Sunday Anticipated Mass. After the first mixed reaction to "And with your Spirit" he stopped the mass and gave an adlibbed talk, joked, talked again -- for about 5 minutes. Then he got back to the rubrics.
Near the end of Mass he, like in your example, gave a grade comparison: "You guys get an A ... me, I get a C..." (or did he say "F"?) Anyway, I thought his comments were really unnecessary and detracted from the otherwise solemn feeling of the new translation.
Overall, our "first attempt" went rather well and the Cardinal stuck to the rubrics (e.g., "for many") and chanted a couple of the prayers in English.
I liked that the Kyrie Eleison was chanted in Greek, but much prefer the Adoremus Hymnal setting.
I also really appreciated hearing the "new" Confiteor (though in English).
Pelikan....Lutheran Theologian. Pelikan....Ignotus.
How....well, yes, how appropriate.
ACK! Redo: "Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."
I echo the sentiments that the changes really aren't that major (particularly the laity's parts). I love the new Gloria, Creed, and the Roman Canon (btw... Thank you Father for using the Roman Canon at yesterday's Mass - I wish it were always used on Sundays as it fits our High Mass theme much better than the abbreviated Eucharistic Prayers).
I look forward to the time when the priest no longer has to pause to interject information about which option is being used as that really ruins the beauty of the Mass. But, it is understandable as we all become accustomed to the changes.
My hopes are very high for St. Joseph Macon regarding these changes because I trust the priests and the people are ready for greater reverence. As for some other parishes, I think I'll still be looking for the Latin Mass anytime I travel!
Our service went well. The priest actually gave a nice homily about continuity. He compartmentalised the translation and worship to make it more palatable. He also took a little of the time before Mass to coach, but not during the Mass. Many of our folks just tried and floundered through it with no issues. I must admit I am exhausted hearing people say they don't know why this has to be done. It isn't like it's hard to figure out. and if you ask me to explain it, don't argue with me unless you know what you're on about. If you can argue, then how can you complain to not understand.
My instincts say the back lash will come this week. The Rectory Secretary will fill me in.
Pelikan/Ignotus, Your quote is pretty much meaningless out of context and with out an expressed referrant. You are merely chanting "nanananabooboo" at the adults in the neighborhood from across the street. Go back and pull your little red wagon of resentment and cynicism. Bye now...
At St. Joseph, Waycross, it was a very positive liturgical experience. We had already been doing the new people's responses for a couple of months now and it was then completed by Fr. Paul using the beautiful new Magnificat Altar Missal for the first time.
Because I am very familiar with the EF Mass, I could hear the Latin coming through in the English translation for the first time since the late 60's (when the 1965 Missal was being used). It is a great improvement for the English Mass!
To further emphasize the significance of last Sunday (both in terms of restoring continuity and as the first Sunday of Lent) Fr. had a nice violet frontal on the altar with four traditional-style tripod brass candlesticks on the altar (I still think he needs to go for the full "Benedictine" six with the crucifix facing him in the middle, to boot!).
It went very well at our church. The only parts that did were the "and with your spirit/and also with you" mix. I did it twice myself. But that will go away with time. I thought the priest's parts were awesome, beautiful and much more mystical/supernatural.
It is nice that there were so many positive experiences but I still can't believe some of the hysteria that continues to reign at Pray Tell, like "vatican vandalism" and "it is like someone close to you dying". Emotions and feelings are a weak argument against the new translation.
Even though it seems there is more acceptance there, I fear it is just a regrouping in order to defend the real ground they wish to protect and that is the issues of women's ordination, homosexual marriage and married priests. The things they won’t give up without a real fight.
ACK!--Now I need a redo too (like Ignotus!) I meant to say the first Sunday of ADVENT not Lent!!!
This is what happens when one is trying to get a comment in after work while another family member is waiting for you!
There's an addemdum to the quote: "And it is the traditionalists that make tradition look bad."
Pelikin, you must not have been to any "progressive" Masses lately.
Ignotus, the context, man, the context. Was he talking about the Catholic Church? The Liturgy? Theology? The Lutheran Church? Protestantism in general? Sheinwold on bridge? Modern art? What?
Ignotus, From the same Pelikan quote and the same book, "Tradition lives in conversation with the past..." This is exactly what Benedict with his Reform of the Reform is doing, and what the Catholic Church has always done. Where ya' been?
BTW, Pelikan left the Lutheran church and his pastorate and joined the Orthodox Church in America. Seems that he, too, wanted to get a little closer to the True Church. So, I can play your out-of-context, pick your favorite quote game, too. I'll bet every book on your shelf is either an anthology or some kind of encyclopedia/dictionary. LOL!
Dear Father McDonald,
I noticed on PrayTell you were interested in what we are doing at the Cathedral of St. Paul, especially in regard to the Orate Fratres and Invitation to Communion. I thought it went very well. Here is a link so you can hear our 10 AM Mass from the First Sunday of Advent - see Listen to the Sunday Mass. God's blessings on you and your congregation. They are blessed to have you as their pastor.
Note the context in which I quoted myself. I was speaking not of the value of tradition, but the disvalue of traditionalism.
Any text taken from any essay, book, letter, etc., is "out of context." Why, you just did it by quoting "Tradition lives in conversation with the past..." So, if you do it, why grouse when someone else does it?
Ignotus, I did it in response to your doing it...you know, as an example of the same thing. There is no such word as "disvalue." Anyway, what is this thing you have about consorting with protestant theologians?
Correction: There is no such noun as "disvalue." It is a transitive verb. Sorry.
So, you must then assert that taking a verse, or a group of verses, out of context of, say, the Gospel of John or the Acts of the Apostles, invalidates the value of those de-contextualized verses.
Sorry, I don't buy the assertion, and neither does the Church that takes such groups of verses out of context every day.
Where is the consistency?
Ignotus, The Pelikan quote as you use it has no referrant. You were obviously using it as a slam against traditionalists in the Church and against the reform of the reform. Pelikan himself was not using it that way. Such a quote from a theological work with no contextual antecedent is meaningless.
On the other hand, if I quote out of context, "I am the resurrection and the life..." or "already,the ax is laid to the root of the trees..." there is a known and accepted context familiar to all (who read Scripture, anyway)that immediately makes sense. The Church does not take these groups of verses "out of context every day" as you say. The Church speaks these verses every day very much in context... through Her Priests and that context is called the Mass and exists within the much larger context of the Magisterium. If you consider those verses used by the Church every day as being out of context, then you are suggesting a dichotomy between Scripture, the Church, and the Magisterium. That is called Sola Scriptura. Now, see what reading those protestant theologians does for you...
Sorry, Pin, you don't make the rules of conversation. By your silly reasoning, people could not quote any passage from any author unless all in the conversation knew the whole story.
Real life doesn't work that way.
Traditionalism, as Pelikan noted, is a corruption of tradition. If you know the context, you know why he said it. Traditionalism is a bane, whether in theology, embryology, psychology, or any other -ology you can name.
I don't consider the scriptural passages to be "out of context," but by your reasoning, they are. I was pointing out the error in your own argument.
You did not read what I wrote...but never mind. Now, why don't you elaborate why you believe the reform of the reform is "traditionalism." If, as Pelikan says, 'tradition is a conversation with the past,' then what do you see wrong with the current reform? Notice that is a direct question, Ignotus. Again, what things, specifically, about the reform are a "bane" and "corruption of tradition?" In what way is Father MacDonald's, Templar's, Kumpel's, and others on this Blog's faith "dead?" We await your direct answer with bated breath...
I never said nor did I suggest that the so-called "Reform of the Reform" is traditionalist in nature. The liturgy is always, throughout the Church's existence, in need of reform and renewal. That's why it has been and will be reformed and renewed.
There are some silly things posted here that are traditionalist in nature. For example:
That only Saints can change the liturgy. The Catechism #1125 makes it clear that the "supreme authority" of the Church (the pope) has the authority to change the liturgy;
That a Catholic may disregard any Church teaching that is not taught infallibly;
That a Catholic who chooses to disregard teachings that are not taught infallibly can turn around and demand that other Catholic follow all teachings;
That a Catholic is justified in skipping Sunday mass when the mass does not meet his/her idiosyncratic expectations;
That the rubrics of the liturgy are Divinely revealed (Divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and none of the Apostles ever wore a maniple);
That the current OF of the liturgy is Protestant in origin;
That Archbishop Lefebvre was justified in his schismatic act (see Canons 751 and 1382) of ordaining bishops without the approval and permission of the Holy Father;
In a conversation, two (or more) parties participate. Tradition is a conversation with the past which, by definition, includes the present. While we most certainly must regard the past as instructive in terms of the liturgy (and all legitimate theology), it is another traditionalist error to regard the past as unalterably normative in terms of the liturgy. (Quoting Quo Primum as a basis for denying the validity of ANY changes in the liturgy is another bit of traditionalist silliness. Liturgical legislation, by its nature, is subject to change.)
All legitimate theological developments have depended on the "theological past," also known as Tradition. This would include those developments made by Augustine on the necessity of baptism, the thoughts of Irenaeus regarding Mary as the "second Eve," the decree of the Council of Florence regarding the "filioque" issue, Anselm's "Cur deus homo," or the authoritative teaching of Pope St. Leo XIII on the rights or workers.
Oh, and I don't think Good Father McDonald is a traditionalist. He's wrong from time to time, but not because he is a traditionalist.
Everyone knows I am infallible as well as clairvoyant, but maybe I'm not!
Ignotus, you came on this blog with a chip on your shoulder about the EF, with sarcasm and criticisms of Fr. MacDonald's views on the EF and the Reform, and with utter contempt for Templar and several others. Every stupid little anonymous you used was either some progressive kook, a dissenting Catholic, a socialist, or just a nut. Your latest is a Lutheran theologian (some of whose lectures I attended) who made a half-assed stab at being Catholic. Every word out of your mouth has been either negative regarding the EF and the Reform or just a lot of dissembling nonsense. So, now you list a bunch of posts from the blog as being "traditionalist" which you know were not stated categorically but in a conversational manner. You quoted approvingly Pelikan's statement about "the dead faith of the living," and you did so in a pointed fashion. You haven't answered anything.
Post a Comment