« James, continued | Main | An honest confession »
June 28, 2006
How nice of them
Interesting.
It also lays blame for a certain level of dishonesty, duplicity and incompetence at the feet of those advocating for a new translation for the past, you know 11 years.
The editorial purports to tell the "jarring history" of the liturgy wars, but of course, neglects to tell the entire history, which is jarring indeed.
Here is what is true: "Dynamic equivalence" and locally-generated translations did define the paradigm in the post-Conciliar church, but here's the thing: ICEL seems to have mucked it up. So, you know, they had to do it over again.
What is totally missing from this discussion is any acknowledgment of the inadequacies of the 1973 translation and an honest assessment of how it was inadequate and what motivated those inadequacies. "Dynamic equivalence" does not even come close to describing what happened here. As the NCR editorial admits, game over...so it's time to just move on and implement what we get, but wouldn't it be extraordinary and generous if those who are sighing and acceding to the new translation with such great pain would take a minute and confront the '73 translations along with the Latin original and attempt to explain how much of it is "dynamic equivalence" and not "theological strip-mining."
The NCR editorial suggests that the present "victors" have an agenda and it is, by implication, suspicious. What was the agenda of those who produced the 73 translation? Did they not have one? They were just trying to do a translation that accurately rendered the Latin into English? If, so, they were incredibly incompetent because that didn't happen. Well, then, why didn't it happen? Perhaps we can get a clue from examining the translation, see what was omitted and how what survived was rendered - an exercise which has been done, of course, many times. Will themes emerge? Will we be able to discern a common sensibility in this translation? An...agenda?
Someone wrote me and said that the '73 translation fulfilled the mandate of the time. In a sense he's correct, as I pointed out a minute ago. But what has happened is twofold: the fruit of that effort has been judged inadequate and worse. Secondly, the dominant theological paradigm of that moment has, mercifully been pushed aside, and we would do well to admit what that theological paradigm was: anti-supernatural, deeply skeptical of what some call Revelation.
Someone I know was taught in school by one of the members of the ICEL team that produced the 73 translation. The person didn't know any Latin to speak of (which speaks to the NCR sneering at the present team's lack of qualifications) and was quite upfront about, for example, changing the language in one part of the Mass so that it wouldn't evoke an Old Testament passage (of which it was actually a direct quote, of course) because they hoped to disabuse folks of the idea that the Old Testament might be intepreted in the light of Christ.
Awkwardness is certainly an issue, as it always is with translation. As is, of course, an accurately rendered meaning. But no one is served by this whining that refuses to honestly confront the dominant theological agenda of the 73 translators and the fruit of their work.
Moreover, these bishops and liturgists and others better stop telling us laity how stupid we are, and soon.
Honestly, these folks like Bishop Trautman and Fr. Reese and all of the other experts quoted in these pieces are doing great violence to the post-Vatican II cry of "TREAT THE BAPTIZED LIKE ADULTS! STOP INFANTILIZING US! WE'RE THE MOST HIGHLY EDUCATED LAITY IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH! " The gist of their dire warnings and huffing and puffing and resigned sighs is that the American laity are pretty, pretty dumb and probably can't understand three-syllable words and Scriptural allusions.
Get your stories straight, folks.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
You should know that the liturgy wars aren't over. In the Byzantine Catholic Church, we are getting a new liturgy soon, and it's a complete reversal of what the Roman church is doing. You folks are going to a more literal and fuller translation, whereas we are moving to an abbreviated, non-literal, and inclusive language version of our liturgy.
It's enough to make me cry. Byzantine Catholics always make the same mistakes as the Romans, just forty years later.
The liturgy, which none of the faithful had seen, was going to be promulgated without any input from us. Fortunately, an Irish Greek Catholic priest published a book taking issue with the translation, and the spit hit the fan.
I wish someone would write a news article about this. If you are interested, you can browse the debate raging at http://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=15
Pray for us!
Posted by: Karl at Jun 28, 2006 9:36:45 AM
I loved this remark especially: "Life goes on and so will the community, even if we have to wrap our tongues around awkward constructions that treat Latin as if it were the language Jesus himself spoke and even if we have to wait longer for our own official language to acknowledge that more than half the human race is female."
Here, the NCR, in one sentence, denies Tradition (Latin), endorses sola scriptura (as if it were the language Jesus himself spoke), and continues to support the nonsense that is feminist theology. Inclusive language is ignorance on parade. It ignores the fact that the word "man" or "mankind" (Latin: homo; Greek: anthropos) encompasses both male and female.
Congratulations to those nefarious 11 men in the Vatican who wrested control of the English liturgy away from these idiots and set it in the direction it should go, i.e., reverence and awe. God is the focus. We are not.
Posted by: Janice at Jun 28, 2006 9:38:38 AM
I couldn't agree more with you, Amy, especially your last paragraph.
There has been, particularly in these last weeks, such a glaring contrast to me in the statements I'm hearing from so many bishops and liturgist -- people who have said over and over again how important and empowered the laity are now say that, when it comes to liturgy, the laity are so backward as to not understand basic English, poetic phrases and scriptural/theological references. Or that somehow after what must have been a heck of a shock in the post-Vatican II era that we now cannot handle even the slightest changes in the liturgy.
The ultimate example of this, to me, came from a priest (in charge of liturgy at the time for a diocese) that, very well-meaning, told me that after 30 years Roman Catholics did not know how to receive Communion in the hand because "it's very difficult for us to do things together ritually."
What a sad, impoverished view of the laity coming from those who set the direction of how we worship!
Posted by: Brandon at Jun 28, 2006 9:45:38 AM
What Janice said.
"Ignorance on parade" is a perfect description of "inclusive language!"
Posted by: CV at Jun 28, 2006 9:47:18 AM
"Finally, we suspect that the way forward will also include accommodating those who simply refuse to go along and will stand in place and continue to use the same language they’ve been using for decades. Our suspicion is that God will not be terribly upset by a little show of resistance."
Imagine that. The dissenters have declared a revolution, again.
The NCR talking about correct translations of the New Mass "reversing" the reforms of Vatican II reminds me of liberals constantly talking about smaller increases in spending as spending cuts. Calling a horse a cow does not make it a cow.
Posted by: Tim F. at Jun 28, 2006 9:49:05 AM
From the tantrum/editorial:
Finally, we suspect that the way forward will also include accommodating those who simply refuse to go along and will stand in place and continue to use the same language they’ve been using for decades. Our suspicion is that God will not be terribly upset by a little show of resistance.
Does anyone doubt that nose-thumbing will be the dominant reaction until, oh, about 2010 in most parishes? Moreover, I wonder whether NCR would have blessed "standing in place" thirty to thirty-five years ago.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jun 28, 2006 9:51:42 AM
Thank you Amy. Other than for John Allen, the NCR(reporter) is hardly worth reading precisely because of its shoddy journalism, of which this piece is just another textbook example.
Cheers from Canada. Tony.
Posted by: Tony at Jun 28, 2006 9:54:11 AM
Perhaps in twenty-some years an indult will be granted to those who show the "resistance" the NCR editorial calls for in the penultimate paragraph so that they, who are attached to the 1973 translation, can celebrate Mass in one or two out-of-the-way chapels on occasional Sundays if it's not too inconvenient and if the local bishop is accomodating
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Jun 28, 2006 10:01:39 AM
"In doing so, however, we think it important not to lose sight of how we arrived at this final stage. It is an essential part of the post-Vatican II record."
Oh, I agree. So please, NCR people, do come and sit next to my mother as she explains to you how the old Mass was ripped away from her, and how she went through buying three sets of soon-unusable Missals, and how glad she is to see the translation come back to something that makes sense. I advise you to wear padding, as she likes to emphasize these points with her elbow.
Nor is she the only one who has kept this history in mind, all these years. Indeed, I would say that the vox populi is extremely clear upon this point.
"...the tactics used to reverse the reforms that had resulted from the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s and more than three decades of subsequent work were secretive and engineered by people incompetent in the discipline and accountable only to a small group who had achieved power. That power was used to accomplish what they could not by persuasion or through the mainstream of liturgical scholarship."
Yes! That's exactly how Vatican II was subverted by the crazy revolutionaries who caused all the damage after Vatican II! But finally, we've broken the heavy hand of the secretive folks who pulled changes out of their butts, and we're obeying Rome and the Council Fathers as we were meant to do!
Oh, wait, NCR didn't mean it that way....
"...(no women were included)..."
Apparently I missed the part of language class where the boys got one dictionary and the girls another. Y'all been reading that novel _Dictionary of the Khazars_ again, haven't you?
"....to wrap our tongues around awkward constructions that treat Latin as if it were the language Jesus himself spoke...."
So NCR is advocating a return to the Aramaic liturgy? Funny how I'm not seeing them doing much about that. And IIRC, they didn't like all that incomprehensible Aramaic in The Passion. So why is the language Jesus spoke suddenly so important to them?
"We can do all of that and, given that the community has persisted through far worse, there is a certain confidence one can have in saying that we will do all of that."
You do want a talk with my mother, don't you? 'Cause she can tell you all about altars and communion rails and incredibly stupid homilies. But then again, a lot of people could tell you about watching their families slaughtered for Christ's sake. So... saying stuff like this in a Christian magazine... is sorta like complaining about bugs and humidity in front of Vietnam vets.
"....at the highest levels of the community there were those who had little regard for precedent, competence, the work of others and established process. It is an attitude that has seeped down into lower levels of church governance, where too often power is the only credential necessary for mandating jarring and extreme changes to the life and practice of the community."
Once again, NCR shows a stunning ability to put into words the feelings of the Church about the counter-Council 'implementation' of Vatican II! Are you sure you didn't cut and paste this from a 1970 issue?
"Most of all, we hope professional liturgists and practitioners are brought in as full partners in the preparation of teaching materials and in the implementation of the new translations."
Clearly, this is some meaning of "hope" with which I am not familiar. Probably it means "we will fight to the death to prevent professional liturgists from getting their clammy hands on our Spirit-fired translation."
"Finally, we suspect that the way forward will also include accommodating those who simply refuse to go along and will stand in place and continue to use the same language they’ve been using for decades. Our suspicion is that God will not be terribly upset by a little show of resistance."
NCR supports the SSPX! Wow, this is getting more interesting all the time....
Posted by: Maureen O'Brien at Jun 28, 2006 10:02:50 AM
"the American laity are pretty, pretty dumb and probably can't understand three-syllable words and Scriptural allusions."
This is rich. The same sorry frauds who cooked up the 1973, um, "translation" that accompanied this catechetical train wreck now have the shameless effrontery to blame their victims.
Posted by: Romulus at Jun 28, 2006 10:05:39 AM
The radicals have become reactionaries.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Jun 28, 2006 10:10:53 AM
Amy,
Thank you for this information. We rejoice that a proper translation has finally been made for your liturgy. Sadly, as Karl has pointed out, our translation commission is trying to foist a 2006 version of what was done to you in 1973 upon us in the Byzantine Catholic Church.
Let us pray for one another.
Carson
Posted by: Carson at Jun 28, 2006 10:15:46 AM
Amy, An absolutely brilliant post. Thank you!
From the NCR tantrum:
Finally, we suspect that the way forward will also include accommodating those who simply refuse to go along and will stand in place and continue to use the same language they’ve been using for decades. Our suspicion is that God will not be terribly upset by a little show of resistance.
In my experience, the handful of aging buffoons who likely share NCR's whining call for resistance against truth and beauty have no problem with the recent decree from the whacked out Santa Monica priest that parishioners who insist on kneeling commit mortal sin.
Posted by: Simon at Jun 28, 2006 10:16:57 AM
Perhaps in twenty-some years an indult will be granted to those who show the "resistance" the NCR editorial calls for in the penultimate paragraph so that they, who are attached to the 1973 translation, can celebrate Mass in one or two out-of-the-way chapels on occasional Sundays if it's not too inconvenient and if the local bishop is accomodating
Brilliant!
Posted by: Michael Tinkler at Jun 28, 2006 10:27:54 AM
Amy,
I think what you write is basically accurate, and that the NCR editorial is sorely lacking. But there are a few more twists that can be brought out. What irks me about the attitude of the US bishops is the attitude of "liturgical American exceptionalism". As Bishop Roche so eloquently pointed out, we all speak English, and we should all be united by a single liturgy. The NCR editorial itself says "liturgy is supposed to serve as a point of union, not division" and then goes on to denounce foreigners (let's be honest-- that's what they mean here) who want to foist their translation on Americans. I winced when I read the following: "this group decided how the Bible will sound in the American church." There is no American Church! There is only the Catholic church in America. And how about: "another was from the United Kingdom and had spent no significant time in the United States". Well, that rules him out, doesn't it? Forget the beauty of the liturgy, the soaring poetci language, all we need is a dumbed-down version for middle America and no interference by foreigners!!
Posted by: Tony A at Jun 28, 2006 10:42:08 AM
"....to wrap our tongues around awkward constructions that treat Latin as if it were the language Jesus himself spoke...."
"So NCR is advocating a return to the Aramaic liturgy? Funny how I'm not seeing them doing much about that. And IIRC, they didn't like all that incomprehensible Aramaic in The Passion. So why is the language Jesus spoke suddenly so important to them?"
Hardly. All they mean here is that Latin doesn't have to be treated like a sacred language. It became traditional when Greek died out in most of the west. How close the Latin is to the Greek should be the question before the English has to be bent to the Latin.
Somewhere above in one of the comments the use of Latin was referred to as Tradition with a capital T. I don't like that. Tradition with a capital T is something I am required to believe as a Catholic. Treating as capitalized the T of tradition when we mean only human custom or folkways drives people to sola scriptura. While we are into accuracy of language, lets be more accurate in our usage of terminology too.
Posted by: Caroline Gissler at Jun 28, 2006 10:46:11 AM
Sorry Caroline - the question is - the basic text is in Latin. Period. That's the deal now. The issue is translation from that Latin.
Posted by: Tom at Jun 28, 2006 10:54:34 AM
Well, I don't see NCR doing much advocating of a return to the Greek liturgy, either, or supporting the Eastern rites that use Greek. They just want to complain, not follow their arguments to any logical conclusion. It would be nice if, just once, that logical conclusion were "We reap what we sow."
I honestly can't see how anyone could avoid seeing the parallels, but it appears that this editorial is entirely unconscious of any irony. That is why it is comedy gold.
Personally, I do see the irony in my own enjoyment of liturgical reform. Partially it gives the situation added gusto; but it is also a warning not to be too arrogant. I have no desire to become a mirror image of the seventies lameness I had to sit through.
Posted by: Maureen O'Brien at Jun 28, 2006 10:57:23 AM
Hardly. All they mean here is that Latin doesn't have to be treated like a sacred language. It became traditional when Greek died out in most of the west. How close the Latin is to the Greek should be the question before the English has to be bent to the Latin.
As long as we're being accurate, Latin is the official language of the Roman Rite (and the language of definitions of doctrine, legal documents, and canon law.) How Greek relates to it isn't really relevant to the current conversation.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jun 28, 2006 11:00:53 AM
Amy, I think your take is overly tainted by the mainstream of Catholic blogging.
First, I've never thought NCR ever grasped the nuances of post-conciliar liturgy developments. They lens their take through a different set of glasses than either the internet conservatives or progressive liturgists.
Everyone acknowledges the 1973 translation was a rush job and a weak one at that. The 80's line-up of ICEL spent a good number of years applying itself to a better translation, one eventually deep-sixed by Rome in part for political reasons.
Liam often cautions me about harping too much on the dead Roman Missal II, and I think the same caveat might apply to you and others who fret over the English incarnation of Roman Missal I.
The desire of many liturgists has been for a Missal of higher quality. I think we will soon have something more faithful to the Latin, but until we see the final result, none of us can really address the issue of quality, aside from the fact that the more glaring errors of 1973 have been addressed.
I think you're flat-out wrong in this:
" ... we would do well to admit what that theological paradigm was: anti-supernatural, deeply skeptical of what some call Revelation."
We would do better to acknowledge that Catholicism is more than just an individual priest or two who have hurt us by this particular view. In the US alone there are nearly 20,000 parishes, and more likely there were 20,000 takes on Vatican II: conservative and liberal, faithful and heretical, focused on the essentials and/or peripherals.
For the record, I don't think the laity are stupid at all. But our commentariats are not representative of the many laity who have wisely assessed their bishops might need to be on other tracks than fine-tuning language. If they and their priests can put more of the spirit of the liturgy into their preaching, presiding, and personnel management of the parish Sunday Mass, it will do more than getting a better cookbook from which to work.
I think a better tack would have been to apply Liturgiam Authenticam to tackle the presider prayers first. Give it several years to get a sense of the lay reaction to the changes for the clergy. Then see if alteration to the Ordo Missae was indicated, and if so, how much and in what direction.
At any rate, we'll see within a few years how it will all shake out. I still think sex abuser mismanagement will play into lay resentment about this, especially if allegations continue to surface of bishops shipping predators to prey again. And bishops will need to do a substantial sell-job to priests to make sure parish implementation is smooth. Parish priests have been on autopilot for up to forty years on the current wording; it will take attention and concentration for them to be "authentic" in their liturgical approach. Those who can manage will find an easier task with their laity.
Posted by: Todd at Jun 28, 2006 11:11:21 AM
"From the tantrum/editorial:
Finally, we suspect that the way forward will also include accommodating those who simply refuse to go along and will stand in place and continue to use the same language they’ve been using for decades. Our suspicion is that God will not be terribly upset by a little show of resistance.
Does anyone doubt that nose-thumbing will be the dominant reaction until, oh, about 2010 in most parishes? Moreover, I wonder whether NCR would have blessed "standing in place" thirty to thirty-five years ago."
I suppose, then, that the NCR will now endorse one of those showy public apologies, this time to the SSPX and all of those cranky obnoxious conservatives who just wanted the Latin Mass as they had it all their lives.
And another thing about this bizarro NCR piece: who, in their heart of hearts, really and truly LOVES and is attached to the 1973 translation? I suspect almost no one, not even the NCR editorial board. Just who are they kidding?
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Jun 28, 2006 11:18:07 AM
At any rate, we'll see within a few years how it will all shake out. I still think sex abuser mismanagement will play into lay resentment about this, especially if allegations continue to surface of bishops shipping predators to prey again.
As soon as Amy posted her reflection, I recall thinking, "Some liturgical 'progressive' will introduce the sideshow of the sex scandals into this thread within ten comments."
I was off by nine.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jun 28, 2006 11:20:59 AM
Upon watching the re-broadcast of the most recent bishops' meeting, it became obvious that a core of the bishops truly believe the laity to be simpletons. Cardinal McCarrick spent an inordinate amount of time arguing that the word "anxiety" should not be replaced by the word "distress" because in all his years of hearing confessions, nobody ever came to him complaining of "distress", but many complained of "anxiety". The answer to all of the bellyaching over new "big" words is CATECHESIS, CATECHESIS, CATECHESIS. The priests and bishops will have to spend some time explaining and teaching. Oh, well.
Posted by: lourdes at Jun 28, 2006 11:23:47 AM
Perhaps . . . an indult will be granted to those who show the "resistance" . . . so that they, who are attached to the 1973 translation, can celebrate Mass in one or two out-of-the-way chapels . . . if it's not too inconvenient and if the local bishop is accommodating. -- Tim Ferguson
That is why it is comedy gold. -- Maureen O'Brien
My two favorite lines of the day thus far. Thanks guys for the chuckle.
Posted by: Mark Adams at Jun 28, 2006 11:41:35 AM
Todd, why do you insist on calling the Missal a "cookbook"? It's a poor analogy and open to the worst of the abuses lamented in Redemptionis sacramentum.
Altering the words of the translation in force will cause those priests who have been on "autopilot" since 1973 some amount of jarring - and, frankly, that's a good thing. Even if they resist the pending changes (and I'm certain many will), it will cause them to put some thought into what they are doing. That alone might lead to some measure of the "putting the spirit of the liturgy (hopefully that's the Holy Spirit you're referring to) into their preaching, presiding and personnel management of the parish Sunday Mass," for which you so strongly, and rightly, call.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Jun 28, 2006 11:50:00 AM
