Following my report on using the new ICEL translation I have had a number of emails from different parts of the world but mainly from the UK, from laity and priests, saying that the new ICEL translations of the Eucharistic Prayers are already being used to a greater or lesser extent in their parishes. Priests who are not normally innovators tell me they have waited too long and would be doing their parishioners a serious disservice by continuing to use the old inaccurate translations. I have every sympathy with them, however our UK bishops have not yet sought Rome's permission for them to be implemented, so technically these priests are celebrating illicit Masses.
How serious is this willful act of dissent?
Well, it is the intention of the lawmaker, the Holy See, that these translations should be implemented, permission has been given for their use already in other parts of the world. A great deal of liturgical innovation has already been introduced by deliberate and wilful disobedience to the mind of the Church, the vernacular during the Council, communion in the hand after it, the use of lay persons to distribute Holy Communion, then later women and girls serving Mass, in the scheme of things jumping the gun with the new translation seems very small beer, especially as it is very much according to the mind of the Church that they be implemented.
A wise bishop would do well to try and stop other abuses in the liturgy rather than stomp on the pre-emptive use of texts, which with some minor adjustments, will become standard in the English speaking world. Indeed if I were a bishop I would welcome experimentation in preparatory catechesis for their introduction.
14 comments:
Wouldn't it perhaps be more considerate to the bishops to wait for them to organise the introduction in an orderly way rather than possibly pursuing one's own preferences and tastes? We have had endless trouble with people doing just that.
Michael,
No names of private individuals here, unless you are going to invite them to participate in the discussion and yo have their written agreement.
This whole project is flawed. The issue is not about the translations but about the form of the Mass.
What is striking about the SSPX when I watch videos of their priests speaking, is how real and alive they all seem.
In contrast, I watched Cardinal Pell talking to Luke Coppen on youtube and H.E. looked bored out of his brains. The same is true of CMOC, the only time I saw him at the Cathedral at vespers. He was going through the motions again with that air of insouciance which degraded him and those there present.
We laity are allowing our priests to destroy themselves with N.O. liturgies. I want my priests and bishops back and couldn't care less about this latest initiative.
There has been far too much disobedience in the Church over the last 45 years. Anyone who knows even a little of Pius x, xi or xii would know that they would not have tolerated any such indiscipline.
Jumping the gun is a recipe for anarchy. And as the old catechism reminded us, the fourth commandment instructs us to obey our lawful superiors in all things but sin.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I think priests and people should obey the Church. Disobedience is disobedience. As much as I am excited and welcome the new translation, we must be obedient. If we expect others to be obedient, we cannot pick and choose when we ourselves are obedient.
Sadie has got it right. It's like the elephant in the room, everyone knows about but no one wants to point out. Translations won't help what Bugnini (after a process of reforms stemming as far back as the late 1940s) intended to be inherently anti-traditional.
Our bishop, the Rt Rev Philip Tartaglia, has expressed a wish that the Holy Father might use the new text when celebrating Mass in Glasgow in September.
I can't help feeling that if we were really worried about disobedience, we would all fold up our blogs and silently vanish into the night : after all, you might argue that public expressions of dissent from the Bishops - and most of us are guilty of them, I know I am - are a form of disobedience.
In relation to this particular issue, however, it seems to me that there is a solution : priests could say that 'as the old version of the English NO is now finally discredited, I shall only say Mass in Latin until the new ICEL translations are approved for public use, as I don't wish to be using a translation which does not have the whole-hearted approval of the Holy Father.'
I wonder how that would go down ?
Don't quite see how the bishops are being disobedient in this matter. We owe them obedience despite their faults and failings (real or imagined).
The bishop is the high priest of his diocese, isn't he? So that should mean that he regulates the liturgy in his diocese (though one is not obliged to follow him in disobedient practices: I will drink to the bishop, but to conscience first!)
Seems rather strong to say that bishops have been encouraging dissent. What's the evidence for that?
While the NO may seem unsatisfactory in various ways, I don't think it is invalid (or did Pope Benedict just not notice?).
Seems rather strong to say that bishops have been encouraging dissent. What's the evidence for that?
While the NO may seem unsatisfactory in various ways, I don't think it is invalid (or did Pope Benedict just not notice?).
RJ - you are setting up a straw argument. No one here has ever argued that the NO is invalid, so why bring it up? Secondly, if you regularly read the blogs, you will hear of numerous occasions where the bishops have allowed dissent to continue directly or indirectly through their actions: the Catholic education service debacle or the scandalous "gay masses" in Warick Street in London are just two things that come to mind.
Whereas most of the new translation is excellent I might suggest that our dear Bishops should seek what is known as a derogation on being allowed to continue to say "And With you also" in answer to "The Lord be with you " There is a problem over the meaning the word "Spirit" in this context. I expect anyway that most priest will continue to use the old form and set up what is known as "a contrary custom". I would also get rid of the use of words like "ineffable" since most Catholics do not know its exact meaning and it is not in general use today.
Hestor
If somebody says that priests are "destroying themselves with NO liturgies", then that seems pretty much like saying the NO is invalid. Why else would they be destructive?
Re dissent:
There is a difference in not taking action against dissent (which might be argued to be a failing) and actually promoting it, which could probably be called a sin. I agree that dissent is a very bad thing (and I find it extremely annoying) but aren't you imputing motives to the bishops? Isn't it better to give them the benefit of the doubt until there is proof positive?
"If somebody says that priests are "destroying themselves with NO liturgies", then that seems pretty much like saying the NO is invalid."
That somebody was me and no it does not mean the same. If I wanted to say the NO was invalid I would have said so.
Yes, ok Sadie. I think perhaps what I should have said is that the NO can be celebrated fruitfully.
This was something that the Holy Father was concerned with in his exhortation "Sacramentum Caritatis"
Post a Comment