The Overemphasis on “New” and “Renewed”

Liturgiam Authenticam defended the principle that the substantial unity of the Roman Rite must prevail, plainly and evidently, in and through the plurality of expressions of it allowed by Church authority. That is, the liturgy celebrated by Roman Catholics must contain and transmit a certain historical and theological identity. The progressive view of liturgy, whose partisans find support in Magnum Principium and the pope's letter to Cardinal Sarah, gives pragmatic primacy to ideological pluralism.[1] There is no concrete historical and theological identity of Catholicism: such a view is called “monolithic” and said to be outmoded in our times, having been dispensed with — or so it is claimed — by the Council.

For this reason, I was fascinated to find in the book Athanasius and the Church of Our Time by Dr. Rudolf Graber, Bishop of Regensburg, a summary of the work of the ex-canon Paul Roca (1830–1893), who, late in the nineteenth century, right around the time of the Americanist crisis, “prophesied” what the Church of the future must look like:

The divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual, and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council, which will restore to it the venerable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles, in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilisation.[2]

Graber continues:

Roca’s dominating idea is the word “new.” He proclaims a “new religion,” a “new dogma,” a “new ritual,” a “new priesthood.” He calls the new priests “progressists,” he speaks of the “suppression” of the soutane and of the marriage of priests.[3]

Whatever may be said about Roca’s imaginary council or the actual Council that took place, it is undeniable that the past fifty years or so have presented the somewhat embarrassing spectacle of an obsession with newness. We have painted ourselves into a corner by insisting that everything be “new” or “renewed,” as if this adjective, all by itself, were the token and guarantee of the rightness of an enterprise. This places a subtle pressure on us to innovate, to change, to be different — to privilege motion over stability, acting over suffering, doing over being, work over contemplation. It somehow seems a flaw that a doctrine has remained the same for centuries, or a discipline has not been “adapted” or “updated.” Indeed, given the tendencies of fallen human nature together with the peculiar errors of the modern mentality, the insistence on new things goes in the direction of privileging ugliness over beauty, comfort over self-denial, efficiency over dignity.

Speaking of the cretinism of the liturgical reform, Stratford Caldecott wrote:

Intimations of transcendence — indeed, references to the soul — were minimized. Within the churches, walls were whitewashed and relics dumped in the name of ‘noble simplicity’. Unlike the much earlier Cistercian rebellion against the artistic extravagances at Cluny, this modern campaign for simplicity was not coupled with the asceticism and devotion that might alone have rendered it spiritually ‘noble.’ It fell easy victim to the prevailing culture of comfort and prosperity.[4]

All this has led not to renewal but to an inversion of means and ends, narcissism, anarchy, and, symbolic of all of them, dreadful art. “Many people judge a religion by its art, and why indeed shouldn’t they?”[5] The old axiom “nature abhors a vacuum” has been exhaustively demonstrated in our midst. When spiritually muscular, culturally dense religion vanishes, its place is quickly filled with feel-good sentimental claptrap, pop art, pseudo-mysticism, and bleeding-heart political advocacy. “When a man stops believing in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing, he believes anything,” as Chesterton didn’t say, but might as well have said.[6] We are left with the embarrassing spectacle of Church leaders, inheritors of millennia of wisdom and beauty, chasing after the miniskirts of modernity. One awakens in a Kafkaesque world where mitred ecclesiastics have metamorphosed into Beatles.

Why this feverish and irrational prejudice for the new? What has it got to do with the one true God who never changes; with the sacrifice of Christ, which is once-for-all; with divine revelation, which is complete at the death of the last apostle; with the principles of the spiritual life, which are perennially valid; with the greatness of the Christian tradition, which gives birth to new things conceived and nurtured by old things, and cherishes them all? We might say, inspired by St. Vincent of Lerins, that the Christian religion is a permanent wellspring of truth and holiness from which endless ages can draw fresh water, but it is always the same source, the same substance, the same qualities of refreshment, light, and peace.

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings” (Heb 13:8–9). Christ died once for all. He is the only priest who offers the sacrifice of the new covenant, with his ordained minister empowered to act on His behalf. He gives us the true religion whose dogmas never change, however much the theological understanding of them grows through the ages. The Christian religion is inherently new, permanently new, yet in essence unchanging and everlasting. That is why it is capable of never growing old.

Tradition, rightly understood, shares in this perpetual youthfulness; it is not something of the past, much less an object of nostalgia, but a vital energy in the Church that carries us forward, uniting us with the entire Church outside of our age, and with the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering. Indeed, Jews and Christians in the past viewed our ancestors as our antecessores, those who have run ahead of us to eternity, and therefore as the ones we are following behind. This, of course, is the very opposite of how we tend to think about time and history and culture: we think that we are ahead and our ancestors are behind; they are behind the times, we are on the cutting edge. But that makes no sense, because our ancestors went before us: they have already lived their lives, they know the mysteries of life and death, and we are dependent on them. We are their pupils, their followers.

The sacred liturgy, the divine liturgy as our Byzantine brethren so tellingly call it, must unmistakably reflect the immutable essence of the Faith. As man remains essentially the same, so does Christ, and so does His Church, to whom He communicates a share in His stability. This is why the gates of hell cannot prevail against her—but only to the extent that she is living in communion with Him, the unassailable and immovable Rock. Our worship no less than our theology should not only mention or expound the divine attribute of immutability (including the unity of the history of salvation), but should contain and convey it. Even if, as a created reality unfolding in time and space, liturgy cannot be immutable in itself, it should signify all the divine attributes, so that in its ceremonies, gestures, texts, music, it is always a bearer of truths about God and His Christ, and not guilty of lying or misleading us. The liturgy we have inherited from our predecessors, the fruit of the slow growth of ages under the guiding hand of Providence, is admirably suited for this work of initiating us into the eternal mysteries of God and bringing us to perfect union with Him.


NOTES
[1] See my interview at LifeSite.
[2] Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 35.
[3] Ibid., p. 36.
[4] Not as the World Gives (Kettering, OH: Angelico Press, 2014), 180.
[5] Elizabeth Jennings, quoted by Dana Gioia in his speech "The Catholic Writer Today."
[6] See "When Man Ceases to Worship God."

An Excellent Article on Revisiting Liturgiam Authenticam

I strongly recommend to our readers that they click over to Catholic World Report for a superb article by Nicholas Senz, director of Religious Education at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church in Mill Valley, California. In it, Mr Senz addresses the recent papal proposal to “review” the principles that guide liturgical translations, as well as the contentions of one Fr Michael Ryan that this review is warranted particularly by the pastoral style of Pope Francis. (Fr Ryan is a priest of the Archdiocese of Seattle, and a longtime vocal opponent of the new English translation of the Mass.) First, he addresses the idea that a “solemn” form of language must perforce be somber or depressing, and puts the idea of “humility” in its proper place with a quote from C.S. Lewis that should be translated into Latin and added to the GIRM.

“...you must be rid of the hideous idea, fruit of a widespread inferiority complex, that pomp, on the proper occasions, has any connection with vanity or self-conceit. …The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather it proves the offender’s inability to forget himself in the rite, and his readiness to spoil for everyone else the proper pleasure of ritual.” (Back in the bad old days, this was also known as “false humility.”)

He then addresses the fact that “(d)ecades of poor catechesis have caused the average layperson’s theological vocabulary to atrophy”; I think it goes without saying that such poverty of catechesis was partly caused and partly reinforced by the poverty of the old translation. (In the latter context, we should probably add one of the adjectives commonly joined to the word “poverty”, such as “extreme” or “abject.”) And so, in regard to some of the words that have been deemed objectionable, such as “oblation” and, of course, the perennial difficult word par excellence, “consubstanital,” Mr Senz writes very wisely, “This says less about the fittingness of the words themselves than (it does about) the failure of the Church to impart their meaning. People could learn these terms again, if they were used and explained. We should always be wary of those who doubt the capacities of others—whether it’s their ability to learn, or to understand, or to live the moral life.”

The substance of his critique is addressed to Fr Ryan’s idea that the pastoral style of Pope Francis, which the latter describes as “simplicity, clarity, directness,” etc., somehow makes the use of words like “consubstantial” unjustifiable. (I am not making that up.) To this, Senz rightly replies that the liturgy is not supposed to be an expression of ANY Pope’s personal preferences, much less of his pastoral style. He uses the term “ultramontanism” to describe this, but here I hazard to suggest that this word has become loaded with too much of the history and politics of the last century and a half or more of the Church’s life. He might well have used Fr Hunwicke’s comical neologism “hypersuperueberpapalist,” as he rightly draws the unavoidable bizarre conclusion from Fr Ryan’s bizarre premise: if the liturgy must be retranslated to suit the style of this Papacy, why should it not be retranslated again to suit the style of the next one, and the next one after that, and will Fr Ryan feel the same about this if the next Pope is Cardinal Sarah or Burke?

Anyway, do yourself a favor and read the whole article.

“It Is Right and Just” - A New Book on the Responses of the Mass

Newman House Press has just published a work by Fr John Cunningham, a Dominican priest from Ireland, called “It Is Right and Just - Responses of the Roman Missal”, an analysis of and reflection on the new and improved English responses of the congregation for the Mass. In the preface, His Eminence Cardinal George Pell, chairman of the Vox Clara committee, writes as follows.

“This book reveals the layers of riches contained in the beautiful ancient prayers, rooted in the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers, which have now been translated faithfully and accurately into contemporary English. ... (It) will help those preparing sermons or classes, and those seeking to understand the prayers of the Mass more deeply... why the Church insists on ‘consubstantial’ or why the response is ‘and with your spirit.’ It is pointed out here that ‘invisible’ has a different meaning from ‘unseen’... We are informed why we properly say ‘I believe’ and ‘I confess’, rather than shifting to the collective we.

“It takes time to get used to new translations, and this was true even of the King James Bible. One early critic... threatened to burn it, and raged that ‘I had rather be rent in pieces ... than any such translation by my consent be urged upon poor churches.’ Human nature does not change.

“This learned and lively booklet helps us understand why this English translation will serve us well for any decades, and why it is well received in the United States of America.”

Dom Alcuin Reid writes “To pray the liturgy is to immerse oneself in the Church’s rites and prayers, allowing them to penetrate our hearts and minds with their meaning and thus to feed our souls and to fire our Christian life and mission in the world. In illuminating the meaning of many of the texts of the Order of Mass, It is Right and Just facilitates precisely this. It is a small but important tool for liturgical formation, for unlocking some of the riches of the Church’s Sacred Liturgy for Catholics celebrating the newer or the older rites. Whether you have never read a book on the liturgy before, or have read (or even written) many of them, Father Cunningham is to be thanked for providing something for each of us so that we might draw more deeply and more fruitfully from the source and summit of the life and mission of the Church.”

The Normativity of Ad Orientem Worship According to the Ordinary Form’s Rubrics

Ordinary Form Mass in Salt Lake City (Sacred Music Colloquium 2013)

Today, most people who take a serious interest in liturgy know that celebrating Mass “facing the people” or versus populum was never mentioned even once in the documents of Vatican II, that it was never mandated by any law or instruction of the Church, that the Vatican said historic high altars should continue to be used and not supplanted by table altars, and that it remains perfectly lawful for any priest at any time to celebrate Mass “facing east” or ad orientem. (For more reading on these points, see last week’s post.)

What is still not known nearly as well as it should be is the simple fact that the very rubrics of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite demonstrate the normativity of the traditional orientation of prayer at Mass. Every edition of the Novus Ordo Missae, from the earliest down to the latest revised translation, contains rubrics that clearly presuppose that the priest is facing the altar or “liturgical east” and that he will need to turn around to address the people at various points.

For some readers this will be familiar territory, but for others, it may be one of those obvious points that has nevertheless managed to escape notice until now. Below, I will simply reproduce the texts that contain instructions pertinent to the priest’s position vis-à-vis the people.

From “The Order of Mass” (MR 2002/2008 in the current English translation)

(Numbers below refer to the internal numbers in the Missal. The quoted texts are taken verbatim from the current Missal.)

       1. When the people are gathered, the Priest approaches the altar with the ministers while the Entrance Chant is sung. When he has arrived at the altar, after making a profound bow with the ministers, the Priest venerates the altar with a kiss and, if appropriate, incenses the cross and the altar. Then, with the ministers, he goes to the chair. When the Entrance Chant is concluded, the Priest and the faithful, standing, sign themselves with the Sign of the Cross, while the Priest, facing the people, says: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The people reply: “Amen.”

       23. The Priest, standing at the altar, takes the paten with the bread and holds it slightly raised above the altar with both hands, saying in a low voice: “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life.” Then he places the paten with the bread on the corporal. If, however, the Offertory Chant is not sung, the Priest may speak these words aloud; at the end, the people may acclaim: “Blessed be God for ever.”
       (24. Water and wine. 25. The prayer over the chalice. 26. “With humble spirit…” 27. Incensations.)
       28. Then the Priest, standing at the side of the altar, washes his hands, saying quietly: “Wash me, O Lord, from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.”
       29. Standing at the middle of the altar, facing the people, extending and then joining his hands, he says: “Pray, brethren…”

If the priest were assumed to be always or normatively facing the people throughout the offertory, there would be no need for the rubric to specify that at the “Pray, brethren” he should now be “facing the people.” This phrase is to be taken in contraposition to “standing at the altar,” i.e., in the ad orientem position.

After the Preface, the Eucharistic Prayer, and the Lord’s Prayer, we come to the giving of peace:

       127. The Priest, turned towards the people, extending and then joining his hands, adds: “The peace of the Lord be with you always.” The people reply: “And with your spirit.”

Again, if during the Eucharistic Prayer and ensuing Communion Rite the priest had already been facing the people throughout, the boldfaced rubric would be superfluous. There is no reason to specify that the peace should be given “turned towards the people” unless he has been turned away from them until this point.

Summarizing the next few paragraphs: 128. If appropriate, the sign of peace. 129. Fracture. (Note that if the priest is celebrating ad orientem, he will be turning towards the Lord again at this point — which will make sense out of the upcoming n. 132, as we shall see below.) 130. Agnus Dei. 131. Prayer before communion.

       132. The Priest genuflects, takes the host and, holding it slightly raised above the paten or above the chalice, while facing the people, says aloud: “Behold the Lamb of God…”

Here and in the following number, the rubrical presupposition of eastward celebration is particularly obvious. If we imagine that the priest is celebrating versus populum, it would be strangely inconsequential for the rubrics to say that he should be turned towards the people at the giving of peace (n. 127) and then to note again, a mere matter of moments later, that he should be “facing the people” for the “Behold the Lamb of God” (n. 132). The obvious implication is that between these two moments, he must have turned eastwards to face the Lord present upon the altar of sacrifice. Once he picks up the host and paten or host and chalice, he then needs to turn around again to address the people. This reading is confirmed by n. 133.

       133. The Priest, facing the altar, says quietly: “May the Body of Christ keep me safe for eternal life. And he reverently consumes the Body of Christ.”…

Again, if “facing the altar” and “facing the people” mean one and the same thing, as they do in a versus populum scenario, this phrase is meaningless. But once we re-envision the rubrics in the context of an ad orientem celebration, it all clicks into place. The pattern goes like this:

• From the Prayer over the Gifts to the giving of peace, the priest has been facing ad orientem.
• At the giving of peace, he turns around to address the congregation (n. 127).
• He turns again to the altar for the fraction, Agnus Dei, and prayer before communion.
• He turns to the people to say “Behold the Lamb of God…” (n. 132).
• He faces the altar again to consume the precious Body and Blood of Christ (n. 133).

This may sound like a lot of turning back and forth, but as clergy and faithful know who have attended Ordinary Form Masses celebrated in perfect accord with these rubrics, the actions flow smoothly and, what is far more important, they make sense. When addressing primarily the people, the priest faces them; when addressing primarily God, he remains in the normative position of facing Him, symbolized by the east and, after the consecration, truly present upon the altar of sacrifice.

       139. Then, standing at the altar or at the chair and facing the people, with hands joined, the Priest says: “Let us pray.” All pray in silence with the Priest for a while, unless silence has just been observed. Then the Priest, with hands extended, says the Prayer after Communion, at the end of which the people acclaim: “Amen.”

It should not be necessary by now to point out that if there exists a need to specify that the priest ought to be facing the people for the Prayer after Communion, it is because he cleansed the vessels in his usual posture for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, viz., standing at the western side of the altar, facing eastwards.

       140. If they are necessary, any brief announcements to the people follow here.
       141. Then the dismissal takes place. The Priest, facing the people and extending his hands, says: “The Lord be with you…”

The phrase “facing the people” would seem superfluous here, but the possibility of an interruption by announcements might prompt a question about the stance the priest should take up afterwards. In any case, this rubric falls into the pattern of the priest being told to face the people when saying “The Lord be with you,” with some notable exceptions: see n. 31 and all the Preface dialogues, where the priest is never told to be facing the people.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2011, 2nd ed.) matches the foregoing rubrics in every respect, with the same implications as above.[1] One may consult GIRM 124, 146, 154, 157, 158, and 165; cf. 181, 185, 243, 244, 257, 268. The controversy over the egregious mistranslation of GIRM 299 is not our concern at present; see here to read more. I will limit myself to the observation that one who clings to the mistranslation of n. 299 effectively consigns over a dozen other paragraphs of the GIRM, namely those listed above, to incoherence or total superfluity.

Particularly striking, in any case, is this passage from GIRM 2:

[T]he doctrine which stands out in the following sentence, already notable and concisely expressed in the ancient Sacramentary commonly called the Leonine — “for whenever the memorial of this sacrifice is celebrated the work of our redemption is accomplished” — is aptly and exactly expounded in the Eucharistic Prayers; for as in these the Priest enacts the anamnesis, while turned towards God likewise in the name of all the people, he renders thanks and offers the living and holy sacrifice, that is, the Church’s oblation and the sacrificial Victim by whose death God himself willed to reconcile us to himself; and the Priest also prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice which is acceptable to the Father and which brings salvation to the whole world.

Part of the new liturgical movement is surely rediscovering how just and right it is when the priest is "turned towards God in the name of all the people" -- and when the people, facing east together with him, offer up the sacrifice of praise.

The Exsultet in English

We now have a much better English translation of one of our greatest liturgical treasures. This is only the third year it will be in use, so get ahead of the game and start practicing!

Are We God’s “Sons and Daughters”?

A priest of my acquaintance, and one who knew how to preach an excellent sermon, nevertheless had one turn of phrase that irked me. He would often refer to how we are “God’s sons and daughters.” Now, you might be thinking: What could be wrong with this? Isn’t is true that we are God’s children? Yes, that is true—and thanks be to God for such a wondrous gift. The problem consists in the use of the female-gendered language, rather than saying “sons” or “children” or “offspring.” After explaining why, I will come around to the revised ICEL translation of the Roman Missal and the lex orandi dissonance it presents.

I

When speaking of our relationship to Christ the Lord and to Holy Mother Church, one could find room for speaking of sons and daughters, taking Christ metaphorically as the father of the family and the Church as His fruitful wife. But when speaking of the Father and our insertion into the Father-Son relationship, there are only “sons in the Son,” which, indeed, is the way the New Testament consistently speaks:

All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. … For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. (Rom 8:14-15, 29)

In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Gal 3:26)

But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir. (Gal 4:4-7)

He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Eph 1:5-6)

It was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Heb 2:10)

He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. (Rev 21:7)

In contrast with dozens of New Testament passages that speak of “sons” in the manner of these examples, there is only one text in the entire NT that speaks of God’s “sons and daughters” (2 Cor 6:18); here, Paul seems to be paraphrasing a passage from Isaiah that uses metaphorical speech pertaining to the order of creation (cf. Is 43:6-7; Jer 31:9). More typically, the Old Testament places a singular emphasis on sonship, preparing the way for Christ by speaking of Israel as God’s firstborn son (cf. Ex 4:22) and of the Davidic king and Messiah as God’s son (e.g., Ps 2:7, “I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son, today have I begotten you’”). All of this reaches a climax in the two “filial epiphanies” of the Gospels:

And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mat 3:16-17; cf. Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22)

He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” (Mat 17:5; cf. Mk 9:7, 2 Pet 1:17)

The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan is the efficient and exemplar cause of our own baptism, which makes us beloved “sons in the Son”: by the power of the Holy Spirit, we are made to participate in Christ’s natural sonship, being made like unto Him, as He is like unto the Father. This is what our adoption consists in, as Saint Paul so carefully and frequently teaches. The transfiguration, too, shows us, in our Head, what we, the members, are to become in our resurrection, provided we are united to Christ in a death like His.

For their part, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously follow Scripture’s preferred way of speaking of “sons in the Son,” a rule we see observed with utter consistency throughout the ages, in the great monastic and Scholastic authors, and in all the great modern theologians and spiritual authors, such as Newman, Mersch, Marmion, Scheeben, Journet, and Ratzinger.

But why is this consistency and clarity of sonship language so important?

II

Our fundamental filial relationship with God is not in any way conditioned by our sex. We are Christians not inasmuch as we are men or women, but inasmuch as we are human persons made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore redeemable and saveable. We participate in the sonship of the natural Son of God, in whom there is no natural Daughter, even as we participate in the bridal nature of the Church, who is a She, not a He.

In comparison with Christ, we are all brides; in comparison with the Father, we are all sons. Yes, the images clash and refuse to mesh—in the order of nature, one cannot be simultaneously a son and a bride—because we are dealing not with natural realities but with a supernatural mystery of divinization so profound that no single way of speaking can fully express it. And yet, the precise images we use do matter: they cannot be arbitrarily switched around, for we are dealing with definite truths, not with vague mythic metaphors.

To go one step further: in our participatory divine sonship, there is not a natural filiation like the one we have to both of our parents. In the natural order, we proceed as male or female from a man-woman couple. Supernaturally, however, we proceed as the Son from the Father; God is Father, not Mother, nor is the Son a Daughter. Hence, when speaking of our relationship to God in Christ, we must not bring in gender (“God’s sons and daughters”), for such language necessarily implies a relationship of merely natural or physical generation.

Put differently, by trying to be inclusive, the language of “sons and daughters” actually ends up being exclusive. For all of us are sons, and all of us are brides. The modern linguistic convention distributes these identities, under the influence of an excessively sexualized conception of the human person, as if women cannot have a certain relation to God that men can have (namely, that of sons, like the natural Son Jesus Christ), and as if men cannot have a receptive stance vis-à-vis God the way women can (namely, that of brides, like the Church in whom they exist). In reality, every Christian gets all of these privileges, some of which are best described by strictly masculine language and some by strictly feminine language. It is the greatest honor of a man or woman that he or she gets to be re-created in the image of the Son, as a son; and it is an astonishing perfection of our creatureliness that the same man or woman gets to be united to Christ as a chaste virgin to her Lord: “I feel a divine jealousy for you [Christians of Corinth], for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor 11:2). It would be just as ridiculous to talk of men and women as “brides and bridegrooms of Christ” as to talk about men and women as “sons and daughters of the Father.”

III

Given the massive witness of Scripture and Tradition concerning a central dogma of the Faith—our adoptive sonship in Christ through water and the Holy Spirit—imagine my chagrin when I saw that the revised translation of the Roman Missal adopts the very language that is problematic. Here are three of many instances:

Almighty ever-living God, whom, taught by the Holy Spirit, we dare to call our Father, bring, we pray, to perfection in our hearts the spirit of adoption as your sons and daughters [adoptionis filiorum], that we may merit to enter into the inheritance which you have promised. (Collect, 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time)

O God, by whom we are redeemed and receive adoption, look graciously upon your beloved sons and daughters [filios dilectionis tuae], that those who believe in Christ may receive true freedom and an everlasting inheritance. (Collect, 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time)

Look, we pray, upon your people’s offerings and pour out on them the power of your Spirit, that they may become the Body and Blood of your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, in whom we, too, are your sons and daughters. (Eucharistic Prayer for Reconciliation I)

Even if the redactors of the translation could plead that they intended no theological assertion but merely wished to avoid giving the impression of excluding women—an inclusive language move, they would say, rather than a doctrinal stance—nevertheless the venerable axiom lex orandi, lex credendi reminds us that the liturgy cannot avoid forming us with its formulas and will teach well or badly depending on the soundness of its formulations. The language of the liturgy shapes our minds, our hearts; it is, without a doubt, the primary source of doctrinal formation for contemporary practicing Catholics, especially in an age bereft of substantive catechesis.

Now, it is clear to everyone who studies the liturgy that the revised Roman Missal is, overall, fortunately such a vast improvement over its predecessor that they can hardly even be compared in the same breath; and it is no less clear (pace Butler) that, as the official text, it must be used and cannot be modified at the whim of the celebrant, whatever imperfections may remain in it.  (Of course, one is always free to celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin, if one wishes to have the Ordinary Form in its most authoritative expression.)

Bd. Elizabeth of the Trinity

Still, these facts do nothing to change our responsibility to use language precisely, when we speak in our own words, as servants of the unchanging truth of Divine Revelation. If we want to avoid transmitting over time a distorted doctrine of the Trinity, of our adoptive filial relationship to the Father in and through His only-begotten Son, and of the nature of the Church as “spiritually feminine,” the Bride of Christ and the Mother of the faithful, we would do well to avoid referring, in our preaching and conversations, to “God’s sons and daughters.” Let us speak of God’s “children” (cf. Heb 2:13, 1 Jn 3:1-2), and even, when appropriate for the context, of God’s “offspring” (cf. Acts 17:28-29), and of “brothers and sisters in Christ”; but let us take special delight in proclaiming the wondrous truth that all of us who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (cf. Gal 3:27), and thus, are “sons in the Son,” to each of whom our heavenly Father can truly say: “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.”

In this connection, I was struck by a beautiful passage from Dom Paul Delatte’s Commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict:

With baptism and faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, all these distinctions vanish; and in spite of the diversity of our individual circumstances, in spite of the plurality of our natures, we are all one in Our Lord Jesus Christ. The same divine sonship is enjoyed by all, the same blood circulates in all veins, all have the same name, the same spirit, the same nourishment, the same life. This levelling is accomplished, not by the degradation of any, but by the elevation of all to the stature of Our Lord: “unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. iv. 13).

Perhaps the most sublime expression of this mystery is given to us in the prayer written by Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity:

O Consuming Fire, Spirit of Love, descend into my soul and make all in me as an incarnation of the Word, that I may be to Him a super-added humanity wherein He renews His mystery; and You, O Father, bestow Yourself and bend down to Your little creature, seeing in her only Your beloved Son, in whom You are well pleased.

The Pope's Letter on the Translation of 'Pro Multis'

The official Vatican website has recently posted the text of Pope Benedict’s letter to the president of the German Bishops’ Conference, Robert Zollitsch, archbishop of Freiburg, in which His Holiness explains why the Holy See has insisted upon the literal translation of the Latin words ‘pro multis’ in the Canon of the Mass. In the English-speaking world, this correction was introduced as part of the broad correction of liturgical translations in use since the beginning of the current liturgical year. In Germany, the occasion for this correction is the imminent publication of a new edition of the Catholic hymnal and prayer-book Gotteslob, which also contains the text of the various Eucharistic prayers. Although this letter was written to address a very specific issue for a particular language group, it touches upon some broader issues of liturgical reform, and should be read who all those are interested in Pope Benedict’s ideas about the liturgy. I here wish to highlight two of these issues in particular.

The Holy Father begins by noting that the translation of ‘pro multis’ as ‘for all’ derived from “a consensus among exegetes to the effect that the word ‘many’ in Isaiah 53:11f. is a Hebrew expression referring to the totality, ‘all’.” This consensus, however, has subsequently “collapsed.” This is not the first time that the scholarship behind the liturgical reform has turned out to be lacking, the most famous case being perhaps the so-called Canon of Hippolytus, of which the Second Eucharistic Prayer is a broad paraphrase. What the Holy Father writes here may therefore help to pave the way for further corrections of the modern liturgical reforms in the light of newer and better scholarly research.

The Pope goes on to describe this use of ‘for all’ in place of ‘pro multis’ as “not merely a translation but an interpretation, … something more than a translation.” In many cases, the combination of translation and interpretation is necessary to make ancient texts intelligible to modern listeners. But in many cases, such interpretative translations have produced very different results in different languages, not all of them of equal merit, and some of very little merit at all; as the Holy Father himself writes, “Some banal elements have also crept in, which are real impoverishments.” He also notes from his experience of celebrating the same liturgy in a variety of languages over the years, “it has become increasingly clear to me personally that as an approach to translation, the principle of structural as opposed to literal equivalence has its limits.”

Bearing this in mind, the Holy See decreed in 2001, in the instruction Liturgicam authenticam, that translations of the official liturgical texts into the vernacular should be more literal. If the result “seems alien and raises questions”, it is the task of the Church to explain it; herein lies the second essential point which the Pope makes in this letter. “Not even the most sensitive translation can take away the need for explanation: it is part of the structure of revelation that the word of God is read within the exegetical community of the Church…”

Many persons within the Catholic Church (and elsewhere) have succumbed to the temptation to believe that one need merely put the liturgy into the vernacular to make it instantly and entirely clear to the men and women in the pews. The experience of the decades that have passed since Vatican II has shown otherwise; instant intelligibility can just as easily mean instant ignorability, especially when dealing with translations of indifferent literary merit. Even the best use of the vernacular does not dispense the preacher, the catechist and the parent from their duty to instruct those in their charge in the Faith. I was recently told by someone that the new translation of the Mass “divorces the people from the liturgy”; when I asked for an example of how it does this, I was told that “no-one knows what the word ‘consubstantial’ means.” The Holy Father very rightly points out that the very fact that the word is unusual (manifestly not unintelligible) is what should drive the Church to fulfill Her ministry to teach the faithful what ‘consubstantial’ means and why it is important. “The word must be presented as it is, with its own shape, however strange it may appear to us; the interpretation must be measured by the criterion of faithfulness to the word itself, while at the same time rendering it accessible to today’s listeners.”

The change from ‘for all’ to ‘for many’ should therefore be seen as what is now often called “a teaching moment”, (if I may be forgiven the use of an expression which itself has rapidly decayed into banal political jargon.) The Holy Father himself undertakes such a catechetical explanation as the occasion demands, “aware that it poses an enormous challenge to those with the task of explaining the word of God in the Church.” After explaining the significance of the correct translation in three paragraphs, he urges the German bishops to impart a similar catechesis to their flocks, with the hope that it “will be presented soon and will thus become part of the renewal of worship that the Council strove to achieve from its very first session.”

As the Church implements the directives of Liturgicam authenticam over the coming years, this will not be last translation controversy. In this letter, Pope Benedict has given the whole Church not simply a good explanation of why one particular phrase should be translated literally, but a key to understanding the proper use of the vernacular in the Sacred Liturgy.

The Liturgy of the Hours and the New Missal Translation

The closing prayer of the Liturgy of the Hours for Lauds and Vespers is generally the same as the collect of the Mass.  With the implementation of the new English translation of the Roman Missal, those who wish to pray the hours in English are left with two alternative versions of the same prayer: the new and improved translation as found in the missal, and the obsolete translation as appears in the breviary.  Eventually, a new English translation of an updated Liturgy of the Hours will be published and indeed is already in the works.  Until then, it is permissible to continue using the obsolete collects when concluding the hours.  It seems advantageous, however, to use the new translation, not only for the sake of fidelity to the official Latin prayers but also to reinforce the connection between the Liturgy of the Hours and the Liturgy of the Mass, which together form the basis of the Church's public worship.  Toward that end, Newman House Press (publisher of Bishop Athanasius Schneider's Dominus Est—It is the Lord!) has produced a 400-page volume containing the collects of the Roman Missal, in Latin and English on facing pages: Oremus—Let Us Pray sells for $25 (US) + $5 shipping and is available directly from the publisher.

Fr. Robert Barron on the New English Translation

Readers interested in the whys and wherefores of the new, corrected English translation of the Roman Missal are encouraged to set aside 13 minutes to view this video commentary by Father Robert Barron, whose ten-part documentary Catholicism is likewise well worth your time.

"Loving and Living the Mass," 2nd Edition

I am happy to announce that Zaccheus Press has just released a second, revised and expanded edition of my book, Loving and Living the Mass. First published in late 2007, the book has been revised to bring it into conformity with the new English translation of the Missale Romanum (Ordinary Form). Moreover, the second edition features two new chapters: an explanation of why a new translation was needed, and an apologia for formal, ritualized worship. Loving and Living the Mass is intended to help Catholics (whether cradle, new, or prospective) engage more deeply with the Church's greatest act of worship, the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Among the surfeit of Mass guides that have been published in recent years, this one has the advantage of being brief (only 84 pages, including the bibliography), and thus inexpensive, without compromising theological depth. Perhaps you'll consider giving it to someone on your Christmas gift list.

New "Thanksgiving Day" Preface (USA)

A few of our readers might recall my critique of the Preface of the (optional memorial) Mass for Thanksgiving Day (the fourth Thursday in November), as found in the Sacramentary used in the United States and now approaching the end of its working life.  My copy of the new English-language missal arrived yesterday, and I was delighted to find that that Preface has been replaced by something altogether different—and theologically sound.  Whether or not my criticisms (originally published in the June 2004 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review) had anything to do with it, I will probably never know.  In any event, the revision is something for which I am truly thankful.

Upcoming Event: Blessing of the New Missal, Chicago

Our readers will recall a previous post about my work on the illustrations for Liturgy Training Publications' edition of the new translation of the missal. Those in the Chicagoland area will be pleased to hear that LTP will be hosting an open house in honor of the new edition, culminating in a blessing of copies of the new missal by Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago. I, sadly, will not be in attendance, but you will have ample opportunities to view the finished product!

The open house is at LTP's offices at 3949 South Racine Avenue, Chicago, beginning at 4:30 PM, today, September 26, 2011, and concluding at 8 PM. The cardinal's blessing will begin at seven o'clock. There will be complementary light refreshments and gifts, and attendees will have the opportunity to enter a drawing for a new missal.

The Musical Transition to the New Missal

Some three months from implementation, the transition to the Third Edition of the Roman Missal has very obviously avoided the gloom and doom scenarios widely predicted among partisans of the 1970 translation. The dissidents have calmed down, the publishers are printing the Missals, the workshops are proceeding apace, the initial liturgical presentations have been beautiful, and we can all look forward to a vastly enriched liturgical experience beginning in Advent.

But there is another issue that is hugely important to the overall presentation of the Roman Rite, and that issue is music. Commentators tend to underestimate the significance of this factor, but if you talk to average Catholics, this issue turns out to be decisive. The music provides the aesthetic framework that is communicated to the faithful, and it is one they readily understand as a sign of the well being and confidence of the Church herself.

More than any other issue, the music issue was the one that most traumatized Catholics when the first Mass of Paul VI was promulgated. In the same way that this new Missal corrections that serious translations of that edition, so too does this Missal offer a chance for getting matters back on the right track so that the music is fully integrated as part of the liturgy.

The issue of the text has been settled from on high with the promulgation of the new Missal itself. It has simply been a matter of making a new translation and implementing it, and this has been done. The music issue is not so simply solved. It relies on parish-by-parish cooperation in the spirit of the change. Legislation can suggest, the Church can publish, influential voices can explain and guide. But, in the end, it is all about the parish, the pastor, and the directors of music at all levels.

Pastors, however, have come to fear the music question because it continues to divide people like few other questions. Uncountable numbers of people simple refuse to go to Mass because they do not like what has happened to music at Mass, particularly the emphasis on pop music. Those who do attend regularly continue to be as divided as any group that fights over song selections. As for the musicians themselves, no matter what they are playing or singing, they tend to take offense at the slightest suggestion that they have made less than stellar choices and need to change.

All this wrangling is completely understandable given the neglect of the music that is native to the ritual, namely the chant. Chant is music specifically crafted beautifully elucidate the text of the Mass in a stylistic manner than transcends social divisions. It does not draw from contemporary cultural archetypes so that it does not go out of fashion; it is timeless in the sense that it is appropriate at all times. It worked in the first century and it works today to accomplish what liturgical music is supposed to do.

This tradition has been neglected because of a series of missteps following the close of the Second Vatican Council. The Council made a strong call for chant. The Vatican published two books of chant, one before and one after the new Mass appeared. But the voice calling for chant was always an “uncertain trumpet.” The right to pick any music for the Mass, embedded in legislation, led to an untenable situation in which the Mass music, and therefore vast aspects of the liturgy itself, were effectively contracted out to third party publishers - and not just the composition and printing of the music but also every aspect of the text and style.

A few years ago, the tipping point arrived for many Church officials. They discerned that something had to be done about the loss of the chant tradition. The introduction of the new Missal seemed like the best vehicle for this: a more authentic translation should go along with more authentic musical experience of the Mass. This idea was to reduce in our liturgical environments the role of artificial, industrialized, commercial pop music and increase the role of simple chant that people can actually sing and grow to love.

This is why so much effort was put into composing chants for the Third Edition of the Roman Missal. Just enough of the words of the Order of the Mass are changed in the new Missal to make nearly all existing “Mass settings” unusable. The metrical elements of the old text that caused them to be said in a syllable-driven 6/8 meter (“Glory to God in the highest / and peace to his people on earth”) were changed (“Glory to God in the highest / and on earth peace to people of good will”) to be more accurate and eliminate meter and hence encourage plainsong.

Strategically, this amounted to a stroke of genius. With the slate clean, the next step was to formulate music that consistent with the Roman Rite tradition but is also easy enough for parish musicians to sing and implement in their parishes. Further, this music should be in English in order to overcome the great fear of our age of Latin, and doing this explores that largely neglected possibility opened up by the Council.

The chants were made integral to the Missal text itself. ICEL officials have said, time and again, that the Missal chants themselves should be thought of as a baseline music for all parishes. To this end, the USCCB has given approval for all of this music to be used in liturgy in the months before the Missal is scheduled to be implemented.This is why the music has been be given away free online far in advance, so that everyone could practice it. Publishers outside the Catholic Church, however, were not excluded but rather invited to offer settings consistent with the new text and the emerging ethos.

It was all very bold, and brilliantly done. It’s probably the plan that I would have crafted had anyone asked me. It strikes me that this overarching plan had a high probability for success in dealing with the problem, which is that the music in all but a few parishes bears any likeness to the historical experience of the Roman Rite or the hopes of the Second Vatican Council.

If the whole idea was a great one, is it working? For the well-educated musicians in parishes with savvy pastors, the answer is yes. My own private estimate is that perhaps 1000 parishes that were otherwise stuck in a pop-music rut are already making the shift. They are embracing the singing of the Missal chants without accompaniment. These same parishes are using the occasion to implement sung propers (see the Simple English Propers) and make some efforts to unify all the parishes Masses around this theme.

There is no question that this is progress, even amazing progress. It is tempting to look on the downside I will discuss below and forget that all of the above would have been unthinkably wonderful even two years ago.

There were, however, some missing pieces in the bold plan. A major factor has to do with the competence of the musicians in the parish that are to be the front line for implementation. I’m not sure that I’ve seen solid data how many of these people are trained to read music, receive a professional salary, and have knowledge of the structural demands of the Roman Rite. But I can say that in my own experience, most seem to be well intentioned volunteers who, if they are paid at all, receive just a small token for their services.

I’ve given speeches to large gatherings of diocesan musicians and ask for a show of hands of how many can name the minor propers of the Mass; only a few hands in a hundred go up. Fewer still can read basic notation; most follow along with the piano or affect singing based on what they have heard before. The prospect of hearing a note in their heads and breaking a silence to intone the Sanctus absolutely terrifies many of these people.

As just one example, at the largest gathering of Catholic musicians this year at the National Association of Pastoral Musicians, a speaker began singing Ave Maria, and several separate reports suggest that perhaps only one quarter of those in attendance could pick up the singing. And this is with 3,000 people in attendance.

The bottom line is that despite growing pockets of expertise and obvious progress over the last ten years, the major swath of people who have been pressed into service in Catholic liturgy over the country are not prepared to manage what exists much less lead in a transition to a liturgy in which the human voice predominates in chanted settings of the ordinary and propers.

There is, in addition, a deep conservatism that has taken hold in all our parishes, and it takes the form of preferring the status quo to any change. This results from the depleted musical capital just discussed and also a leftover effect of the great upheaval of the 1960s that continues to leave many people in the pews completely shell shocked.

Even among those who eventually became used to the new rite of Mass did not look upon the revolutionary fervour of the period with affection. Forty years later, we are in a strange position of panicking about the slightest change to anything at all. And so it is with Catholic musicians today. The deep irony is that lasting legacy of the Council of change has been a profound fear of change.

The new Mass text changes about ten words in total for the full set of ordinary chants. But based on the level of panic on the part of musicians, one gains the impression that they are all being asked to sing in a long recitative in Swahili and an aria in Galician. My inbox certainly testifies to the level of hysteria. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t receive pleading notes of “save me, save me.” When the head of ICEL gave a talk in New York recently, he took time for questions and they were nearly all asked with a tone of fear and loathing underscore by deep confusions.

What happens to a large community of people who are barely getting by as it is and then are asked to change toward something that is arguably more difficult? They throw themselves at the mercy of the institutions promoting the familiar. This is pretty much what has happened in a large number of parishes, as the old-line publishers who have learned ways to flatter amateurs with settings that get them through the day are thriving once again.

It’s possibly true that ICEL, the USCCB, and Vox Clara all overestimated the capacity of average Catholic musicians to adapt and sing what strikes experience liturgical musicians are ridiculously easy chanted settings of the Mass text. Even so, it could be the case that even this material is too difficult for their current abilities - or, at least, this is what many singers believe.

What about sending teachers out to parishes to get them going? Many of us have done workshops and worked with singers. We’ve made youtubes that have received as many as 7,000 views. We’ve produced editions in four-line staves and modern notes. But all our efforts combined are dwarfed by the influence of the large publishers, who have lobbied hard at every Office of Worship in this country (“you should have one Mass setting for the entire diocese and it should be the one we sell”), done non-stop seminars all over the country, and promoted proprietary music at every stop.

Pastors are in a position to get the musical transition on track with simple interventions. But, again, they are in the habit of not intervening in their music programs and are not interested in starting now.

None of this is to say that there has not been and won’t continue to be progress. After all is said and done, hundreds of parishes will be singing Catholic ritual music whereas they might otherwise after sung something else forever. But all these efforts are too little to amount to a wholesale counterrevolution that many have long awaited.

Some years ago, Michael Joncas wrote a book on sacred music that concluded that if chant were to make a serious return to American Catholic parishes, it would require concerted, relentless educational efforts over the very long term. It would appear that he was precisely right. Is it worth every effort? It is worth as much effort as the faith itself requires.

Remember that this struggle isn’t about us vs. them. It is about creating space to let the voice of the liturgy itself speak and sing. There is every reason to be confident about the long-term future. The high hopes of the Council will eventually prevail.

Illustrating the Revised Roman Missal

Late last year, I was approached by Liturgy Training Publications in Chicago regarding commissioning a series of fourteen images of Scriptural events and other liturgical illustrations for their upcoming edition of the Revised Roman Missal. I had been asked to submit a study for the missal cover along with a number of other artists, and apparently my work had caught the firm's eye. (They eventually selected a very talented in-house artist to do the cover, a handsome interpretation of a number of early Christian motifs, but the die had been cast.) The number was expanded to fifteen early in the process, and I prepared for a very busy and exciting spring at my studio.

I worked very closely with the publishing firm's liturgical and artistic consultants, drawing on a collection of scriptural prompts and suggestions for each image and also contributing my own insights where appropriate. It was a challenging and rewarding project, and the feedback and suggestions from Liturgy Training Publications helped me grow a bit in terms of my artistic style. I am very proud of the work I have produced for this project. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only edition being published with a fully new set of illustrations specially commissioned for the work.

The images were finally completed in late June of this year, and the missal is currently at the printers. There will be both ritual and chapel editions available for purchase. You can get a very good sneak peak at many of them through the missal publication's website. A full-size sample of one of my pieces can be seen here, and the typeface and layout here. The cover can be seen here. You will note the style we selected for the work is elegantly simple and, while possessing a universal appeal, still conscious of the historical realities of first-century Judea. This was a conscious choice on our part that I think will contribute considerably in the images serving as aids to contemplation and prayer.

On a more self-serving note, our readers will be pleased to hear that under the terms of my contract, I am permitted to sell the original hand-drafted images to interested collectors or institutions. As neither the publisher nor I will be making prints of these images presently, such a piece of art would be quite unique, and I would certainly welcome inquiries via email about available subjects and pricing.

Correction: It has been brought to my attention that Liturgical Press is also undertaking an edition of the missal with specially-commissioned art, by Br. Martin Erspamer. My apologies for any confusion this oversight may have caused.

Lecture Series at Kenrick-Glennon: The New Translation of the Roman Missal

I was recently directed to the latest installment of the Kenrick-Glennon Seminary lecture and workshop series I participated in earlier this year; the most recent speaker was the witty and articulate Msgr. Wadsworth of ICEL giving an excellent four-lecture cycle on the new missal translation, accompanied with snippets of a DVD produced to help clergy navigate the changes.

You can find the recordings, plus a sermon he gave on the priesthood, here. While I did not see the DVD itself (podcasts can only convey so much), it sounded excellent, and Msgr. Wadsworth himself did a wonderful job as well explaining the concepts in play in the new translation, what we can expect, and how it will be implemented. With a priest like him at the tiller of ICEL, we have much to be thankful for.

Antiphon Lately

T

he current issue of Antiphon: A Journal for Liturgical Renewal is nearly wholly devoted to matters related to the new ICEL translation of the Roman Missal. This issue consists of a meticulously researched study—a short book, really—by the renowned German theologian Fr. Manfred Hauke on the "pro multis" of the consecratory formula, with a foreword by Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments from 2005 to 2009. Father Hauke was understandably eager to make his work available in English as soon as possible, even if doing so would necessitate serial publication. Consequently, he had the study translated and, to my great delight, submitted the translation to Antiphon for publication in its entirety.

Another translation-related (and translated) piece, much shorter but nonetheless timely, concerns the greeting Dominus vobiscum and its response, Et cum spiritu tuo. Written by the Benedictine liturgical historian Bernard Botte (1893-1980), it was originally published in the March/April 1965 edition of the journal Bible et vie chrétienne. Much of what Dom Bernard wrote 45 years ago regarding the French translation of these Latin phrases can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the present circumstance.

Both authors present compelling cases for accurate translations, arguing from overlapping biblical and theological perspectives (and in Botte's case, from the standpoint of biblical anthropology as well). One might be surprised to learn that controversy over translations of liturgical texts is nothing new.

Regular visitors to NLM are likely to find much of interest in the pages of Antiphon, so why not consider a subscription? ($20 U.S., $26 Canada, $28 elsewhere. Back issues are available for $7 U.S.) The journal is free to members of the Society for Catholic Liturgy, by the way. Scholarly contributions, translations, and reviews of books and music are always welcome. For more information, click here (and see, on the same page, the ad for "Christ the Eternal High Priest," by Br. Maximilian Schmalzl, C.SS.R.).

The New English Translation of the Roman Missal: An Important Step in Building the Culture of Life

This past week, I have heard from some who are concerned the Church is wasting time on the new English translation of the Roman Missal when there are seemingly more important problems in the Church, in particular, the fact that many Mass-going Catholics support legal abortion to some greater or lesser degree.

In response to those concerned, one can confidently say: the time spent on the new translation is, indeed, time well spent. The texts used in the liturgy have a direct impact on the moral and spiritual lives of the faithful, and insofar as this is the case, relates to the important matter of building a culture of life.

Liturgiam Authenticam, the instruction on the use of vernacular languages within the liturgical books of the Roman liturgy, expresses how the proper and faithful translations of liturgical texts will flow into the hearts of the faithful having a 'very powerful' influence in their lives:

By means of words of praise and adoration that foster reverence and gratitude in the face of God's majesty, his power, his mercy and his transcendent nature, the translations will respond to the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people of our own time, while contributing also to the dignity and beauty of the liturgical celebration itself.

The liturgical texts' character as a very powerful instrument for instilling in the lives of the Christian faithful the elements of faith and Christian morality is to be maintained in the translations with the utmost solicitude. The translation, furthermore, must always be in accord with sound doctrine.

As well, in 2002, John Paul II spoke of the direct link between the texts used within the liturgy and the Christian life in a letter to the international committee overseeing the English translation of the Roman Missal, Vox Clara:

Since the lex orandi conforms to the lex credendi, fidelity to the rites and texts of the Liturgy is of paramount importance for the Church and the Christian life.

Now, in considering the statements above it is quite clear that the texts of the sacred liturgy are of great importance and should not be dismissed as inconsequential. That said, we should also be clear that this worthy project of re-translating the English edition of the Roman Missal is only one of a series of necessary steps that will bring us toward a more reverent and transcendent liturgy. Matters such as sacred music, sacred art and liturgical orientation are also crucial; further, we need to pursue mystagogical catechesis; all of these assist the faithful in uniting themselves to the sacred mysteries being celebrated.

The sacred liturgy is the source and summit from which all else flows. The newly re-translated texts will contribute to a greater sense of transcendence, drawing the faithful outside of themselves and to God. This in turn is more likely to lead one to conversion of the heart and mind; to a more profound love of God and neighbour. From that, of course, flows the keener awareness of the value and dignity of each human being, and that all life is sacred from conception to natural death.

The sacred liturgy is the foundation for the culture of life. Therefore, rather than the new, and better, English translation being a waste of time, it is precisely time well spent. Time that will help in building a culture of life among the Cathlic faithful, and, further, build up the entire life of the Church.

Related NLM articles:

The Sacred Liturgy: The Neglected Foundation to Building the Culture of Life

Pro-Life News Site Lists the Liturgy as the First Priority in Building the Culture of Life

U.S. Bishops Approve to add Votive Mass in Thanksgiving for the Gift of Human Life

Prefect of the CDW: "The future of humanity is in the liturgy"

Jeffrey Tucker on: Mass Ordinary with New Text

You will be interested in this page of settings of the Mass ordinary set to the proposed new English texts, for free download. The voice belongs to Aristotle Esguerra, performed for pedagogical clarity:

• Kyrie XVI (English) PDF | MP3
• Kyrie XVIII (English) PDF | MP3
• Kyrie Simplex II (English) PDF | MP3
• Kyrie Simplex IIIa (English) PDF | MP3
• Kyrie Simplex IIIb (English) PDF | MP3
• Kyrie Simplex IV (English) PDF | MP3
• Kyrie Simplex Va (English) PDF | MP3
• Kyrie Simplex Vb (English) PDF | MP3

• Gloria XI (English) PDF | MP3
• Gloria XII (English) PDF | MP3
• Gloria XIII (English) PDF | MP3
• Gloria XV (English) PDF | MP3
• Gloria Mozarabica (English) PDF | MP3

• Credo VII (English) PDF | MP3
• Credo Ambrosiano (English) PDF | MP3

• Sanctus I (English) PDF | MP3
• Sanctus IV (English) PDF | MP3
• Sanctus X (English) PDF | MP3
• Sanctus XIII (English) PDF | MP3
• Sanctus XV (English) PDF | MP3
• Sanctus XVI (English) PDF | MP3
• Sanctus ad libitum I (English) PDF | MP3
• Sanctus Ambrosiano (English) PDF | MP3

• Agnus Dei IV (English) PDF | MP3
• Agnus Dei X (English) PDF | MP3
• Agnus Dei XI (English) PDF | MP3
• Agnus Dei XIV (English) PDF | MP3
• Agnus Dei ad libitum II (English) PDF | MP3
• Agnus Dei Simplex III (English) PDF | MP3
• Agnus Dei Simplex IV (English) PDF | MP3
• Agnus Dei Simplex V (English) PDF | MP3

JT on: What the new English Gloria sounds like

I'm pleased to present a new page that features an ongoing posting of new musical settings of the proposed new text of the Mass. The first one posted is an English rendering of Gloria XV, which is perhaps the oldest Gloria that we have. You will see that it looks great with the new English Mass text. (Here is a direct link to the Gloria)

Also you can follow along with this recording done by Aristotle Esguerra.

This could become the new standard in parishes. Sounds Catholic, doesn't it?

Jeffrey Tucker on: The Mass, Translated at Last

I've been spending some time with the new texts of the Mass from ICEL, and one can't but breathe a sigh of relief. We've gotten so used to a text that departs from the Latin to a shocking extent. It requires something of adjustment to adjust to the new versions, realizing that we can finally attend Mass and participate in an actual English version of the universal Missal written in the holy tongue.

We will actually be using the words of the actual creed. We will say a real translation of the Gloria, one that actually follows the text line for line, word for word. Our responses in the dialogues will actual parallel the Latin.

What we've had up to now has can't really be called a translation at all but a new text entirely, one cobbled together by folks who somehow believed that they were smarter than the whole of history that had put together the Latin text. It sort of gives one chills.

Somehow it is more alarming in retrospect, now the poor rendering is being replaced, that we lived with this stylized paraphrase for nearly forty years. I know we should let bygones be bygones, but those who had a hand in giving us such weak excuses for translations in the past really are without excuse. The arrogance of that generation or that committee or whomever is responsible boggles the mind.

There is a way in which the new translation represents a much-welcome and thorough repudiation of the immediate past. That the bad rendering lasted so long underscores how difficult it truly is to change things in the Catholic Church. This is usually a good thing, except when matters get on the wrong track. At the same time, tremendous credit goes out to those involved in pushing for and getting the changes made. The frustrations and battles they faced must have been immense but what a glorious victory in the end!

Four distinct opportunities present themselves:

1. With a new text comes a pedagogical obligation, which also means a tremendous opportunity. An entire generation has lived amidst a separation of their liturgical language from the universal language. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that many Catholics, even most Catholics, are today unaware that their Mass text is not an autonomous thing but actually has a direct link to a parent language that is normative.

The new text will be described as a better rendering of the Latin. This alone serves to heighten consciousness that the English itself, that the national language of the Mass, is accountable to something else that is ancient and universal. This fact alone will help reorient people in terms of how they should judge what takes place at Mass: not in terms of their own needs and cultural expectations but rather the requirements of a universal liturgy.

2. In parishes that are accustomed to merely saying the text, pastors will find that a change will create confusion as people stumble over the words of the Creed, for example. Actually the best way to teach a new text is to make it into a song. This is why so much children's' pedagogy uses music to teach: it helps everyone remember. Everyone learns differently, of course, but in my own case, memorizing Latin—and English for that matter—is far easier when I have a song in my head. Even memorizing the Latin Ave Maria, Pater Noster, or mealtime blessing, proved a challenge for me until I knew the music. So if parishes are not currently singing, this is a great chance to get people singing and also teach the new text.

The GIRM presumes that the Credo as something that is sung as the first option but I can't remember ever hearing it sung in any parish I've been to. Maybe the new texts will inspire a change in the practice of merely saying the creed. As the Second Vatican Council said, "liturgical worship is given a more noble form" when the texts are sung.

3. New texts will require new musical settings. Many will regret this. Many will see a profit opportunity in the change. Actually, we have here a chance to not only embrace the true text of the Mass ordinary but also the musical sense that is intrinsically connected with it.

Problem: Many of the Mass ordinary settings that are in use in American parishes have no connection at all to the liturgical aesthetic. They are borrowed from popular commercial sounds and beats. They show off the choir and instrumentalists and seek to engage people by presenting catchy tunes and rhythms. What is lost here is the greater purpose of music at Mass: to engage us more fully in the Mass itself which seeks to take us to God.

Solution: The most ancient and effective musical approach here is plainsong. The texts under consideration are not poetry but prose. Plainsong lets the prose sing in a natural and normal way without the force-fit of musical metrics. This kind of music also elevates the senses and directs our attention upwards. It keeps the peace within the liturgical space and directs our hearts and minds toward prayer. Plainsong is integrated with the chants of the priest so that Mass is not an hour-long song sampler but an aesthetically seamless period of solemn spiritual drama.

There would be no great loss if all this music were to vanish, I'm sorry to say. Yes, there are always exceptions but on the whole, it is just not suitable. In an odd way, the music that went with the poor textual renderings were an integrated package: both departed substantially from the intrinsic qualities of the Roman Rite.

Nor is there any reason for parishes to shell out the big bucks for new music. As a service to American Catholics, the Church Music Association of America will be making available free downloads of suggested ideas for the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. They are based on Gregorian, Ambrosian, and psalm tone settings. In the coming weeks and months, they will appear along with audio samples. They will be copyright free (but for the text; ICEL still insists on copyrighting the Mass text).

4. Some pastors and parishioners may find themselves frustrated at the change and wary about the idea of plunging into another English settings. People have limited patience for liturgical language change, so why not just avoid the issue altogether by embracing the Latin text? Those who have already done so won't have nearly the transition problems of parishes that have not. The beauty of the Latin is that it has not and will not change. What the Church sang in the year 1000 it still sing today. Here is the timeless workaround to continuously shifting vernacular.

Some new text will need to be taught regardless. One might as well go the full way and do what we should have done all along. After all, both the Second Vatican Council and the GIRM both say that everyone Catholic needs to know the basic parts of the Mass in Latin. All the music for them is available for free as well. There is a pastoral benefit too. At first people don't like learning the Latin; there is a sense in which learning all new things is slightly painful. But after a time, the people in the pews develop a sense of accomplishment once they can sing it and stop stumbling over the words. One might say that they take pride in it, and the very act of singing the Latin increases our sense of being part of something larger than our own time and place.

Once the text is taught through a simple song, a new world of music opens to us. The choir can begin to sing polyphonic settings of the ordinary of the Mass, and people will recognize the way the Gregorian melodies are related to the polyphonic tradition. If you have never explored 16th century liturgical music, you will be astonished at how much is available to you. You will see why it is that the Second Vatican Council singled out this music for special mention as appropriate to the Roman Rite. There is nothing in English to compare.

So there we have it: an opportunity to connect with the true text of the universal Mass, to sing the rite, to sing with better music, and so finally embrace Latin as our primary language of worship. We have been given a wonderful gift.

(Coda: It seems that Todd at CS made the same points before I did.)