The new translation raises hackles in Milwaukee

Via Fr. Z, Annysa Johnson of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has this (my emphases and comments added):

Catholic clergy and lay leaders from around the region will gather in Milwaukee Thursday for a two-day conference that will be, for some, their first in-depth look [the text has been available for some time now.] at the controversial changes ahead in the Catholic liturgy. The Vatican is issuing its most significant and extensive revision of the [English translation of the] Roman Missal - the prayers and texts used in Catholic worship - since the 1960s in an effort said to better reflect the original [read "authoritative"] Latin texts.

But some see the changes, due to be implemented late next year, as unwieldy and unnecessary. [Two sentences in, with nary a pause to explain what the changes actually are, and already a pivot to the critics. It's not difficult to see which side this "journalist" is pinch-hitting for. Blatant Lamppost journalism.] And they fear they could further alienate the faithful [or they could attract reverts and converts] at a time when the church is already struggling financially and failing to retain members.

"For some people this will be very unsettling," said Father Ken Smits, a Capuchin priest and liturgical scholar who is troubled by the move away from the vernacular to a more stilted, "sacralizing" language. [You tell 'em, Father! How dare they! Liturgy is no place for the sacred and language well-adapted to it!] "The real concern is among the parish priests, who will have to explain something many of them are not in favor of," said Smits. "They'd much rather spend their time in ministry than have to go through this linguistic exercise." [This "linguistic exercise"—necessary primarily because of ICEL's failure to do an acceptable job the first time—can be seen as "ministerial" in the sense it's used here. There are several parts of the liturgy whose scriptural roots are obscured by the existing translation, a translation which (regular readers of Fr. Z's literal translations of the collect prayers will know) approaches paraphrase in places. I wrote about the Sanctus here, but you could also consider the 3d Eucharistic Prayer's obscured roots in Psalm 113, or the Lukan root of the Domine non sum dignus prayer before communion. Examples could be multiplied.]

The Archdiocese of Milwaukee workshop is one of 22 around the country aimed at educating clergy and lay leaders on the revisions.

Dean Daniels, director of the archdiocese's Office for Worship, called critics' concerns valid, [alienating the faithful is a "valid" concern. The theory that Catholics are too stupid to either know or look up the meaning of "consubstantial," and will therefore be alienated, is not a valid theory.] but said the revision will bring English-speaking Catholics in line with the global church. "Anytime there are changes, people go through the process of being angry and sad," he said. "But the church has been changing forever. It's a dynamic, living organism."

The Vatican approved the U.S. version of the Missal revision in March. An international petition drive asking English-speaking bishops to slow the implementation using a pilot program has drawn more than 21,000 signatures, including many from Wisconsin. ["Wow, 21,000, that's impressive," said the 65,180,000 American Catholics who didn't sign it.]

The new translation, nine years in the making, is the work of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments and a committee of English-speaking bishops and consultants known as Vox Clara, or "Clear Voice."

That alone is troubling to some who see the revisions as part of a systematic dismantling of provisions of the Second Vatican Council, which, among other things, endorsed the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular of the people and gave national bishops conferences authority over translations. [Alright. First, Vatican II did not "endorse[] the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular." It said exactly the opposite: "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." What the council "endorsed" was the limited use of the vernacular in some parts of the liturgy: "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to" the vernacular; "in the first place … the readings and directives, and [ ] some of the prayers and chants." This might extend to vernacular responses in appropriate situations, but only so long as the faithful are still taught how "to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them." A "more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass" would require authorization from the Holy See. (All the foregoing quotes are from Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 36 and 54; emphases are mine.) So taught the council. Whatever else one can call those things subsequently done in the council's name by the consilium, Paul VI, and myriad zealous trendies in parishes around the world, "part of Vatican II" isn't one of them.

Second, saying that Vatican II gave authority over translations to national bishops' conferences is true to a point, but a little misleading. Translations must be approved by the bishops. (Which has happened in this case, by the way.) Within the bounds of norms mentioned above, it is for bishops' conferences "to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used," subject to Vatican approval. See SC 36.3-4.

Lastly, anyone who thinks this translation furthers the "systematic dismantling of provisions of the Second Vatican Council" either (1) is off his meds, (2)has failed to read or comprehend the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, (3) are unable or unwilling to distinguish what the council said from the many changes made after the council, about which the council said nothing—communion in the hand, removal of alter rails, etc—, (4) subscribes to the National Catholic Dissenter, or (5) all of the above.]

"The fathers of Vatican II said overwhelmingly that we know how to adapt the prayers to our own needs," [?] said Father David Cooper of St. Matthias Parish in Milwaukee and chairman of the Milwaukee Archdiocese Priest Alliance. [We can only fumble in the dark about what is meant here. It should be noted that the fathers of Vatican II taught that if regional and linguistic adaptations are to be drawn up, "the substantial unity of the Roman rite [must be] preserved," adaptations must be within the limits of the editio typica whence this translation is drawn, and some adaptations must be approved by the Vatican. SC 38-40. This is a long way short of carte blanche to an undefined "we"—parish priests? Ordinaries? USCCB?—to "adapt the prayers to our own needs." Also: "needs"?]

The new translation introduces more formal, rarefied[, precise, accurate, universal, sacral] language into the liturgy. [It doesn't "introduce" it—it is already there. The new translation simply translates it properly.] But Cooper and others who have studied drafts say it ignores English grammar and syntax and introduces terms - "consubstantial," [ooh!] "oblation," [ah!] "ignominy," [eee!] to mention a few - unfamiliar to many American Catholics. And some worry it will sow division in the pews. [You know what's really good for avoiding division? Not talking to the media about how much you don't like a done deal and hope worry that it will be divisive.]

"You can call it whatever you like, but it's not English," said Cooper. [It's English, Jim, just not quite as we know it.] "The language of prayer is supposed to be evocative, graceful, uplifting," he said. "This reads like clunk-clunk-clunk-bang-boom." [So you say. I, too, have read much of the new translation, and with some exceptions—part of the revised confiteor is lamentable—it is far more evocative, graceful, and uplifting. What Cooper is really objecting to is simply this: the language of the Mass will not be the everyday English you might use to write a life insurance policy. But who says that an encounter with the sacred should have no more poetry than an encounter with the drive-through window? Don't we use special language for special occaisions in a secular context? I wonder what Cooper, Bp. Trautman, and other critics of the new translation would make of the following language:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

And that, folks, is how special and high-falutin' we get just to render unto Ceasar!]

Some pastors have already begun preparing their parishioners for the changes, which will ultimately require an investment in new missals [every parish I've ever been to uses missalettes that are replaced every season. The priests will need a new Sacramentary.] and hymnals. [?]

[Another boon:] "Much of the music that has come up over the last 30 years will no longer be useable," said Father Alan Jurkus of St. Alphonsus Parish in Greendale, who sent out a letter this month notifying members of the coming changes. [As Fr. Z notes, that is an absolutely splendid argument in favor of the new translation. Some of that music is pretty good; so sue me, I like the Mass of Creation. I'm not saying that it's Palestrina or anything. At any rate, most of the rest ranges from the mediocre to the atrocious (without naming names, let's just say that, for example, people are searchin' for the kind of love that we possess). Some of it—I'm looking at you, Haas—is outright profane.]

Jurkus is encouraging parishioners to accept the revision as an opportunity to grow in their faith. [Right attitude.] But he harbors his own concerns. "The bottom line for me is why. Why, with everything else that's going on in the church, do we have to rub salt in the wounds?" [????????]

Previously:
The new translation II (04/29/2010)
The new translation I (1/15/10)
Hodiernus lectio principalis (2/7/10)
Poor Faulker (10/27/09)