Goings-on at the Knoll

Here are some brief snippets of things happening around the Knoll these days:

The eastern region Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM) is meeting here this week. Much of their discussions will center around the Presidium workshop. (Either I'm getting old or these superiors are getting younger each year.) It is nice to have an almost full house again.

At the monthly house meeting yesterday, we spent most of the hour bracing ourselves for the imminent changes to the English Mass. First of all, even the smaller chapel edition weighs a ton. How the older men serving as acolytes will be able to hold this for any length of time will be a challenge. Fr. John Kaserow, our house liturgist, suggested we may have to set up a stand in front of the presider's chair to hold the book.

But that's the least of its drawbacks. The committee who translated this may be experts in Latin, but they know squat about the English language. Here's the basic error with literal translation from Latin: it sounds awkward at best and stupid at worst in English.

I made this point when I met with the Sunday school teachers last weekend to prepare them for the changes. "Gamsa hamnida" translates from Korean as "Thank you." The response is: "Chun maneyo" but the literal translation is not "You're welcome" but rather "Ten million." Makes absolutely no sense in English.

Ergo we get stuck with "consubstantial" in the creed. And don't get me started about the Spirit descending like "dewfall." (Cat Stevens, call your publicist!)

Anyway, the burden falls on the celebrant to make the Mass prayerful, perhaps requiring a greater miracle and mystery of faith than Transubstantiation.

Lastly there was a moving, one-woman performance in our Asia Room on the life of Dorothy Day, entitled "Haunted by God." The show was sponsored by the Armistad Catholic Worker house in New Haven, Conn., in memory of Fr. Tom Goekler who worked there and who passed away a year ago in Honduras.

Gathering storm (Parts one & two)

A gathering of Maryknollers that calls itself "Common Table" met for the third time in two months to discuss ways to refan into flames the smoldering embers of Vatican II.

In addition to "The Situation", models of authority as presently exercised by leadership, communication and transparency (or the lack and need thereof) were also discussed. The meaning of our oath, and whether we consider ourselves primarily priests and Brothers, or Missioners, or Maryknollers were shared. Ways we might refound Maryknoll and mission in the 21st century were also briefly mentioned as topics for future deliberation.

A voluntary steering committee of four members will facilitate topics for the next gathering, to which all Society members are invited. Only attendees will get detailed minutes.

**************

Another topic discussed was our reaction to the gathering earlier Wednesday, when Monsignor Bill Brentwood, pastoral vicar from the New York archdiocese, gamely described the ways Holy Mother Church will strive to get the Eucharistic toothpaste back inside the liturgical tube.

Apparently the guiding rubric and answer to most questions about the New Roman Missal is "Because it's closer to the Latin", in fulfillment of the Lord's injunction: "By this shall all know you are my disciples, if your worship more closely reflects the Latin."

Never mind that Latin scholars pointed up THOUSANDS (OK, hundreds) of mistranslations among the 10,000+ changes that were made to the Mass AFTER the U.S. Bishops signed off on the "final" draft.

Never mind the contradiction that "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" will be dropped because "there is no Latin translation" when, in fact, in the Pre-Vatican II days there were NO Eucharistic acclamations and all were made AFTER the Council. Someone (Cardinal Wilton Gregory, I hear) didn't like it so out it goes.

Never mind that "Chalice" replaces "Cup" in the words of consecration, being "closer to the Latin" "Calix", although inexplicably "Cup" survives into Eucharistic Acclamation B "...and drink think this cup..." (Whoops! Now they might catch this before the books come out October 1)

The egalitarian accessibility to the liturgy once proffered by Mass in the vernacular will be thus sacrificed on the high altar of clerical Romanocentric conformity.

On the other hand, we delude ourselves if we think people will get their bloomers all in a twist over this. Hell, they stuck around during the days when the Mass was entirely in Latin and Greek. The Powers-That-Be are equally deluded if they think this will in any way stem, much less reverse, the hemoragghing of active Catholics from attendance at Mass.

The good Monsignor sought to assuage our misgivings by assuring us this, too, is a work in progress which will be reviewed, evaluated and changed as necessary, "in about 40 years."

Yeah, I'm assuaged.

Titanic redux?

In all the hullabaloo surrounding our seemingly endless Centennial celebrations, not to mention the up-coming Centenary of the Maryknoll Sisters next year, one very important 100-year anniversary is creeping up on us and should not pass unacknowledged: April 15, 1912.

The sinking of the Titanic.

Granted our 14 Centenary committees have enough on their plates, so I suggest the first official preparation for the Memorial to the Titanic Sinking be the gathering here at Maryknoll this afternoon from 3:30-5:00 p.m. in the Asia Room where Monsignor William Belford from the New York archdiocese will instruct us on the New (Improved?) Roman Missal.

Folks, the unsinkable Roman Catholic Church has already hit several ginormous icebergs and is taking on water fast. Passengers are abandoning ship in droves. We are listing severely to the far right. And what comes from the Captain's quarters? The emergency announcements shall henceforth be given in theologically questionable, linguistically awkward and pastorally dubious albeit poetic terminology.

The argument for the need for said new retranslation is bogus and has been discredited by real Latin scholars who have pointed out that the 10,000+ changes that were made AFTER the U.S. bishops approved the "final" draft are not, in fact, closer to the Latin. Nor do they adequately represent sound Biblical and theological statements.

With all the serious issues our church faces, it is quite disheartening to see so much energy, attention and money given to making the Mass less accessible, more incomprehensible, yet "closer" to the Latin (at least as our Lord spoke it, anyway).

Oh sure, there are some nice revisions such as "Behold, the Lamb of God" and even "And with your spirit," but "Consubstantial with the Father" and "Incarnate of the Virgin Mary" won't come trippingly off the tongue. I'm not even sure if "consubstantial" is an SAT word.

For the most part, I doubt most parishioners (those that still come to church) will notice, much less care. It does, IMHO, give yet another indication of just how oblivious the clergy are to their real spiritual needs.

New Roman Missal (Missile?)

Many thanks to Fr. John Sivalon and Fr. Don Allen for bringing this article in America magazine to our attention. (I use the royal "we" because I received it as part of a mass emailing). Maybe this will be the R.C. Church's opportunity for a Facebook, email, or Twitter revolution.)

***************************************

An Open Letter to the U.S. Catholic
Bishops on the Forthcoming Missal
ANTHONY RUFF | FEBRUARY 14, 2011

Your Eminences, Your Excellencies,

With a heavy heart, I have recently made a difficult decision concerning the new English missal. I have decided to withdraw from all my upcoming speaking engagements on the Roman Missal in dioceses across the United States. After talking with my confessor and much prayer, I have concluded that I cannot promote the new missal translation with integrity. I’m sure bishops want a speaker who can put the new missal in a positive light, and that would require me to say things I do not believe.

I love the Church, I love the sacred liturgy, I love chant in Latin and English, and I treasure being involved with all these as a monk and priest. It has been an honor to serve until recently as chairman of the music committee of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) that prepared all the chants for the new missal. But my involvement in that process, as well as my observation of the Holy See’s handling of scandal, has gradually opened my eyes to the deep problems in the structures of authority of our church.

The forthcoming missal is but a part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger church. When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and mischief have marked this process—and then when I think of Our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity…I weep.

I see a good deal of disillusionment with the Catholic Church among my friends and acquaintances. Some leave the Catholic Church out of conviction, some gradually drift away, some join other denominations, some remain Catholic with difficulty. My response is to stay in this church for life and do my best to serve her. This I hope to do by stating the truth as I see it, with charity and respect. I would be ready to participate in future liturgical projects under more favorable conditions.

I am sorry for the difficulties I am causing others by withdrawing, but I know this is the right thing to do. I will be praying for you and all leaders in our church.

Pax in Christo,

Fr. Anthony Ruff, O.S.B.

Anthony Ruff, O.S.B., is a Benedictine monk of Saint John’s Abbey and a professor of liturgy and Gregorian chant. He was on the committee which drafted the 2007 document “Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship” for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He is founder of the National Catholic Youth Choir and blogs at Pray Tell. His letter above to the U.S. bishops is printed in its entirety.

Learning liturgical lessons of the past?

ONE COMPLAINT against the first changes of the Mass from Latin/Greek to the vernacular was that liturgists foisted the translation upon unsuspecting congregations. This gave rise to the old chestnut: "What's the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist? You can negotiate with terrorists." Haha

In an attempt to avoid this mistake, proponents of the New Roman Missal have prepared detailed catechesis to accompany the changes. But now, Rev. Michael G. Ryan, pastor of St. James Cathedral in Seattle since 1988 who serves on the board of the national Cathedral Ministry Conference, has written this compelling article in the December 14, 2009 edition of AMERICA Magazine. I offer it for your enlightenment.

********************************************

What If We Said, 'Wait'?
The case for a grass-roots review of the new Roman Missal

It is now 45 years since the Second Vatican Council promulgated the
groundbreaking and liberating document on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum
Concilium. As an eager and enthusiastic North American College seminarian at
the time, I was in St. Peter’s Square on the December day in 1963 when Pope Paul VI, with the world’s bishops, presented that great Magna Carta to the church. The conciliar document transcended ecclesiastical politics.

It was not just the pet project of a party but the overwhelming consensus of the bishops of the world. Its adoption passed overwhelmingly: 2,147 to 4. Not in my wildest dreams would it have occurred to me then that I would live to witness what seems more and more like the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the council’s decree. But I have. We Catholics have.

For evidence, one need look no further than recent instructions from the
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that have raised rubricism to an art form, or the endorsement, even encouragement, of the so-called Tridentine Mass. It has become painfully clear that the liturgy, the prayer of the people, is being used as a tool—some
would even say as a weapon—to advance specific agendas. And now on the
horizon are the new translations of the Roman Missal that will soon reach the final stages of approval by the Holy See. Before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program that will attempt to put a good face on something that clearly does not deserve it.

The veterans who enthusiastically devoted their best creative energies as young priests to selling the reforms of the council to parishioners back in the 1960s will be asked to do the same with regard to the new translations. Yet we will be hard put to do so. Some colleagues in ministry may actually relish the opportunity, but not those of us who were captivated by the great vision of Vatican II, who knew firsthand the Tridentine Mass and loved it for what it was, but welcomed its passing because of what full, conscious and active participation would mean for our people.

We can see the present moment only as one more assault on the council and, sadly, one more blow to episcopal collegiality. It was, after all, the council that gave to conferences of bishops the authority to produce their own translations
(S.C., Nos. 36, 40), to be approved, it is true, by the Holy See but not, presumably, to be initiated, nitpicked and controlled by it. Further, the
council also wisely made provision for times of experimentation and evaluation (S.C., No. 40)—something that has been noticeably missing in the present case.

This leads me to pose a question to my brother priests: What if we were to
awaken to the fact that these texts are neither pastoral nor ready for our
parishes? What if we just said, “Wait”?

Prayer and Good Sense

I know it might smack of insubordination to talk this way, but it could also be a show of loyalty and plain good sense—loyalty not to any ideological agenda but to our people, whose prayer the new translations purport to improve, and good sense to anyone who stops to think about what is at stake here.

What is at stake, it seems to me, is nothing less than the church’s credibility. It is true that the church could gain some credibility by giving us more beautiful translations, but clumsy is not beautiful, and precious is not prayerful. During a recent dinner conversation with friends, the issue of the new translations came up. Two at the table were keenly—and quite angrily—aware of the impending changes; two were not. When the uninformed heard a few examples (“and with your spirit”; “consubstantial with the Father”; “incarnate of the Virgin Mary”;
“oblation of our service”; “send down your Spirit like the dewfall”; “He took the precious chalice”; “serene and kindly countenance,” for starters), the reaction was somewhere between disbelief and indignation.

One person ventured the opinion that with all that the church has on its plate today—global challenges with regard to justice, peace and the environment; nagging scandals; a severe priest shortage; the growing disenchantment of many women; seriously lagging church attendance—it seems almost ludicrous to push ahead with an agenda that will seem at best trivial and at worst hopelessly out-of-touch. The reaction of my friends should surprise no one who has had a chance to review the new translations.

Some of them have merit, but far too many do not. Recently the Archdiocese of Seattle sponsored a seminar on the new translations for lay leaders and clergy. Both the priest who led the seminar (an accomplished liturgical theologian) and the participants gathered there in good faith. When passages from the proposed new translation were soberly read aloud by the presenter (I remember especially the phrase from the first eucharistic prayer that currently reads “Joseph, her husband,” but which in the new translation becomes “Joseph, spouse of the same virgin”), there was audible laughter in the room. I found myself thinking that the
idea of this happening during the sacred liturgy is no laughing matter but
something that should make us all tremble.

There’s more: the chilling reception the people of the dioceses of South Africa have given the new translations. In a rare oversight, the bishops of that country misread the instructions from Rome and, after a careful program of catechesis in the parishes, introduced the new translations to their people some months ago. The translations were met almost uniformly with opposition bordering on outrage.

It is not my purpose here to discuss in detail the flawed principles of translation behind this effort or the weak, inconsistent translations that have resulted. Others have already ably done that. Nor do I want to belabor the fact that those who prepared the translations seem to be far better versed in Latin than in English. No, my concern is for the step we now face: the prospect of implementing the new translations.

This brings me back to my question: What if we just said, “Wait”? What if we, the parish priests of this country who will be charged with the implementation, were to find our voice and tell our bishops that we want to help them avert an almost certain fiasco? What if we told them that we think it unwise to implement these changes until our people have been consulted in an adult manner that truly honors their intelligence and their baptismal birthright? What if we just said, “Wait, not until our people are ready for the new translations, but until the translations are ready for our people”?

Heeding Our Pastoral Instincts

The bishops have done their best, but up to now they have not succeeded. Some of them, led by the courageous and outspoken former chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., tried mightily to stop the new translation train but to no avail. The bishops’ conference, marginalized and battle-weary, allowed itself slowly but steadily to be worn down. After awhile the will to fight was simply not there. Acquiescence took over to the point that tiny gains (a word here, a comma there) were regarded as major victories. Without ever wanting to, the bishops abandoned their best pastoral instincts and in so doing gave up on the best interests of their people.

So the question arises: Are we priests going to give up, too? Are we, too, going to acquiesce? We do, of course, owe our bishops the obedience and respect that we pledged to them on the day of our ordination, but does obedience mean complicity with something we perceive to be wrong—or, at best, wrongheaded? Does obedience mean going against our best pastoral instincts in order to promote something that we believe will, in the end, actually bring discredit to the church and further disillusionment to the people? I do not think so. And does respect involve paying lip service to something to which our more instinctive reaction is to call it foolhardy?

Again, I don’t think so. I offer the following modest proposals. What if pastors, pastoral councils, liturgical commissions and presbyteral councils were to appeal to their bishops for a time of reflection and consultation on the translations and on the process whereby they will be given to the people? It is ironic, to say the least, that we spend hours of consultation when planning to renovate a church building or parish hall, but little or none when “renovating” the very language of the liturgy.

What if, before implementing the new translations, we do some “market testing?” What if each region of bishops were to designate certain places where the new translations would receive a trial run: urban parishes and rural parishes, affluent parishes and poor parishes, large, multicultural parishes and small parishes, religious communities and college campuses? What if for the space of one full liturgical year the new translations were used in these designated communities, with carefully planned catechesis and thorough, honest evaluation? Wouldn’t such an experiment yield valuable information for both the translators and the bishops? And wouldn’t such an experiment make it much easier to implement the translations when they are ready?

In short, what if we were to trust our best instincts and defend our people from this ill-conceived disruption of their prayer life? What if collegiality, dialogue and a realistic awareness of the pastoral needs of our people were to be introduced at this late stage of the game? Is it not possible that we might help the church we love avert a debacle or even disaster? And is it not possible that the voices in the church that have decided that Latinity is more important than lucidity might end up listening to the people and re-evaluating their position, and that lengthy, ungainly, awkward sentences could be trimmed, giving way to noble, even poetic
translations of beautiful old texts that would be truly worthy of our greatest prayer, worthy of our language and worthy of the holy people of God whose prayer this is? (If you think the above sentence is unwieldy, wait till you see some of the new Missal translations. They might be readable, but border on the unspeakable!)

“What If We Just Said No?” was my working title for this article. “What If We Just Said, ‘Wait’?” seems preferable. Dialogue is better than diatribe, as the Second Vatican Council amply demonstrated. So let the dialogue begin. Why not let the priests who are on the front lines and the laypeople who pay the bills (including the salaries of priests and bishops) have some say in how they are to pray? If you think the idea has merit, I invite you to log on to the Website www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org and make your voice heard. If our bishops know the depth of our concern, perhaps they will not feel so alone.