CfM and WATAC Respond to 'New' English in Worship

Since late-2009 Catholics for Ministry and Women and the Australian Church have been working together on the new - or perhaps more precisely 'olde' - proposed English translation for use in the liturgy, particularly the Mass. Early in March 2010 the two organizations undertook the task of giving an opportunity to priests and people to respond to the proposed new English translation. The two organizations sent out to every parish in Australia Father Michael Ryan's 'What if we said Wait?' and Paul Collins pamphlet And Also With You.

The many responses, particularly from priests, were collated by WATAC and published as a pamphlet. These were sent to the priests who responded as well as to many of the Austraslian bishops.

You can find a copy of the response pamphlet And so the people Said ... immediately after this.

               AND SO THE PEOPLE SAID …..

The following pages are a summary of the responses WATAC and Catholics for Ministry
received after mailing out to all Australian Catholic Parishes two articles addressing the new English translation of the Mass. The articles were:

• ‘What if we said Wait ….’ by Father Michael Ryan of St James Cathedral, Seattle USA

• ‘And Also with You’ by Paul Collins, member of Catholics for Ministry

Early in March 2010, as many of you will know, Women and the Australian Church (WATAC)
and Catholics for Ministry undertook this task so as to create an opportunity for the voice of
the people to be heard regarding their thoughts and feelings about the proposed new
English translation. The responses were many and varied and came via post, email and
telephone; but all were honest and many were passionate, and the various aspects of the
issue were addressed with intelligence, consideration and thoughtfulness.

We all owe those who responded a great debt of gratitude and our hope is that their
responses will create an even wider and on‐going dialogue among us all. When asking for
responses we assured people that whatever they wrote would be treated in confidence and
we have honoured this by omitting in this summary any references that would identify the
writer.

In organising this document we have printed it in three sections. Part I is a compilation of
the early responses; Part II is a summary of the next group of responses received mid April
to end of May and Part III addresses the longer responses/letters which explored in depth
wider issues involved with the new English translation and the processes involved with its
proposed introduction, plus the possible positive and/or negative outcomes of all this.
In November 2009, WATAC undertook a similar process with its membership and having put
together many of the responses we sent copies to many of our Bishops. If you are
interested in reading this summary of what the WATAC women think and care about
regarding the new English translation copies are still available from the WATAC office.
Writing about ‘Hope in an Age of Despair’ Albert Nolan says, “The basis of our hope is God …
What matters in the long run, though, is not only that we are hopeful but that we act
hopefully. The most valuable contribution that a Christian can make in our age of despair is
to continue, because of our faith, to act hopefully…”

Thank you for being part of the dialogue and for your total commitment.

Women and the Australian Church Catholics for Ministry

37/121 Anzac Avenue PO Box 4053
Engadine NSW 2233 Manuka ACT 26.3
Ph/Fax 02 9520 9409
email: watac@watac.net

PART I:
A COMPILATION OF PRIESTS’ RESPONSES
(THESE WERE RECEIVED BETWEEN MARCH AND EARLY APRIL AND WERE ALSO
PRINTED IN THE MAY WATAC NEWSLETTER)

What is your immediate response?

Anger, frustration, powerlessness.
*** *** *** *** ***
I have read the material supplied and I agree 100% with the sentiments expressed. If the proposed translations are rammed through I will be strongly tempted to stick with what we presently have. The Pope and Roman officials must be made to respect Episcopal collegiality.
*** *** *** *** ***
I have been hurt and angry for a long time about these changes. No inclusive language and appalling English.
*** *** *** *** ***
Great joy at the prospect of a genuine translation of the original Latin. Something I have awaited since the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass.
*** *** *** *** ***
I am frustrated and angry at the new translation. I cannot believe that they have used exclusive
language (Nicene Creed, 4th Eucharistic Prayer).
*** *** *** *** ***
Basically the changes are not necessary and won’t mean terribly much to the persons in the pews. The language used is also not in keeping with our everyday use.
*** *** *** *** ***
An unwarranted attempt to reverse the 2nd VAT Council by “the bells and smells club.”
*** *** *** *** ***
Perhaps having a more solemn form of language might even produce some good and enable peopleto move towards something that sets their minds and hearts on the spiritual, a more profoundlyfocused experience. My experience is that our liturgies sometimes can be rather bland, albeit thatsome of us attempt to bring our people into the celebration and encourage meaningful participation.Language is important but does that necessarily have to be exactly the same as “street talk”? I would argue not. Those of us who play sport are acutely aware that there are terms we use, jargon that is particular toa given context of the game. How many people really know what “silly leg” “fine point” “ruck” “fly half” “sweeper” or “guard” mean? Even my spelling check on the computer did not know one of those terms! Why should our liturgical language necessarily have to conform to everyday language, which I have already said can differ from country to country or even county to county? There are always two sides to an argument. We need to be very careful to see the whole picture, not allow ourselves to condemn something without proper discernment.
*** *** *** *** ***
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Paul Collins. This seems to be an exercise in “We have the power, we can do it; we will do it – without reference to the Church or people who speak English.
*** *** *** *** ***
This is a case of “Playing the fiddle while Rome burns”! My greatest concern about our Church today is “Where are the Women”?
*** *** *** *** ***
Huge issues! Enculturation of FAITH! Within that – LITURGY
*** *** *** *** ***
I totally agree with the conclusions drawn by Michael Ryan and Paul Collins. I want to be part of an active challenge to this “disaster in waiting” but don’t know how to go about it. I’m troubled in conscience and wonder how I can be obedient to the Bishops.
*** *** *** *** ***
Whatever the “need” for a New Translation – and there will be a need, given the volatility of English per se! The attempt to have a LATIN – English i.e. definitive English is doomed, again per se! This New Translation is not about English.
*** *** *** *** ***
The process is flawed if we expect general acceptance of the new texts. I would like to see it tested with general parishioners. The principles of translation seem to be out of touch with the language used by ordinary Australian Catholics.

Are you satisfied with the proposed changes to the English Translation of the Mass?

Yes A resounding Yes
*** *** *** *** ***
There will be contrary views on this matter. I think it is a mistake to disregard the various positions one could take or veil it with emotive or exaggerated arguments that suggest that a New English version of the Mass is to betray Vatican II; clearly it raises questions that might seem to do so on face value but one must consider the positive and negative aspects as a whole. I think that Fr Ryan offers an excellent suggestion in the title of his article; rather than make hasty assertions perhaps it would be prudent to wait and allow the various dioceses to engage in clergy preparation so that we fully understand the nature of the changes.
*** *** *** *** ***
No I do not agree:
1. The process eg. Implementation
2. Deceitfulness eg. It’s a step back to VAT 11 not forward as it claims
3. The Latin vernacular has its place but not at the cost of other languages.
4. Its unity in diversity not similarity
5. The condescending attitude of the “powers that be”
*** *** *** *** ***
As the articles show, it will be extremely difficult to sell these new translations to the people. It will be another reason for Gen x & y to dismiss the Church as irrelevant.
*** *** *** *** ***
This is an arbitrary act of aggression towards the people of God. No consultation and a translation so slavish that a sentence can go for 10 or 12 lines.
*** *** *** *** ***
Using exclusive language
*** *** *** *** ***
Exaggeration eg: I have “greatly sinned” and “with your spirit” Language is often flowery like in the Gloria (pizzazz) also I find words such as consubstantial sullied, wrought, unfeigned, ineffective quite meaningless
*** *** *** *** ***
It will drive people away from church.
*** *** *** *** ***
More time, more testing needed. Re liturgy of the WORD – there is need for a “hierarchy” of texts,
similar to hierarchy of truths of faith.
*** *** *** *** ***
Again Paul Collins has highlighted the archaic English, “And with your Spirit”. May mean something to the scripture scholar maybe!!!! It is not English for contemporary people. “Peace to men of good will”!! It is sexist and heretical. It is presuming that ‘good will’ can influence the ‘grace business’ of our ALL LOVING GOD. If it happens the same will happen as has happened to the “Novus Ordo”, Individuals will refuse to use it or will make wholesale changes. The “Temple Police” will be run off their feet!!!!
*** *** *** *** ***
• I largely agree with the interpretation of events surrounding the new translation as put
forward by Collins and by Ryan in their articles. I also generally find myself concurring
with the sentiments.
• Most practical change will impact primarily on parish clergy and leaders in parish
worshipping communities. I have decided to make this as painless and ‘fuss free’ as I
practically and pastorally can.
• The onus for implementing/educating all of the Australian Church members rests with
the Bishops who have agreed to and ‘signed off’ on these texts and translations. If they
duck their responsibility then so will I.
• I will be exercising my full and informed pastoral sense in implementing these changes in
my local parish and its communities. I presently alter/adapt mass texts to make them
more understood and pray‐able and will have to continue to do so as circumstances
demand given what I have seen/read of the new texts. This will include inserting
inclusive language wherever possible.
• Bishops in general and Australian Bishops in particular are enthralled to Rome as
previous experiences testify. Stop looking to them to lead, guide, protect, inspire or
otherwise be ‘ideal’ parent figures/models. In general, use good sense, think for oneself
and the best for the community you serve and get on with the pressing societal and
ecclesial issues.
• The abuse scandals are the best chance we’ve had in decades to ferment conversion
from secrecy to transparency and from fear to faith and loving service.
Thanks for your packet of information and the chance to reply.
*** *** *** *** ***
Exaggeration eg: I have “greatly sinned” and “with your spirit” Language is often flowery like in the Gloria (pizzazz) also I find words such as consubstantial sullied, wrought, unfeigned, ineffective quite meaningless
*** *** *** *** ***
More time, more testing needed. Re liturgy of the WORD – there is need for a “hierarchy” of texts,
similar to hierarchy of truths of faith.
*** *** *** *** ***
No. Very dissatisfied. Angry. Disillusioned. That the principle of dynamic equivalence has been given the shove. At least this attempted to relate our faith to the world today, something the new translation will not do. As a result we will lose even more parishioners as if it’s not bad enough already. The invasive interventionist means by which the original ICEL translation was dismissed is also disturbing.
*** *** *** *** ***
What concerns me is the HYPE i.e. the Current English tends to semi‐Pelaganism. The Current
English does not contain all the depth of the Latin; as if every person prior to 1962 knew,
appreciated, applauded and understood all the Latin words – especially when they were spoken
softly or inaudibly.
*** *** *** *** ***
I would like to see the translations of the prayers of the Mass freshly interpreted and some of the examples I have seen seem fine although I have seen very few. But changing the people’s responses just for the sake of it and sometimes torturously, is ridiculous. Textual integrity for the parishioners – in other words it is not our language. Can I particularly note the grave error in the Creed by leaving the word “men” in the line “For us men and our salvation”. Many parishes have deleted that sexist line years ago. It might appear in the missal but parishioners will not revert to it. However one serious problem is that it may bring deeper division in our communities as the “temple police” find new ammunition and energy to do their reporting. The liturgy which is supposed to be the coming together of the people (the communion) will become another “war zone”. What a tragedy!
*** *** *** *** ***
If WATAC has not attended the National Liturgical Conference, if WATAC has not conducted its own serious study and workshopping of the issues concerning the philosophical foundations and underpinnings of dynamic equivalence versus literal translation, if WATAC only bases its concerns of the leaflet prepared by Paul Collins and a few NCR and America articles ‐ opinion pieces, not dissertations of fact and empirical research, then I would have to ask WATAC if it is more concerned with objecting than with clarifying, ridiculing rather than affirming where affirmation is warranted and dividing rather than unifying.

Have you any other comments?

Have not “The Powers to be” got anything better to do that to dabble in trivia? For example:
1. Sharing Eucharist with other denomination.
2. More rights for the marginalised, the voiceless
3. We should be concerned about the environment; migration; violence in general in our
world.
4. The anti‐Catholic attitudes from Fundamentalism that give Catholics a bad name. “The
Powers to be” are making bad matters worse.
*** *** *** *** ***
Hopefully there will be such a negative response to the proposed new translations that Episcopal Conferences throughout the world will reclaim their God‐given authority over and above Roman Congregations and bureaucrats.
*** *** *** *** ***
As a pastor, I am at a stage where I shall not teach, push, introduce or accept the new missal.
*** *** *** *** ***
I was around at Vatican II when the Novus Ordo was imposed. Michael Ryan, Paul Collins and
Thomas Fox know full well that no one had any chance to review or criticise the language translation
which, from the start was totally inadequate and faith destroying.
*** *** *** *** ***
I know our bishops have tried to have inclusive language used, but this has not been heeded by
Rome.
*** *** *** *** ***
Will the National Council of priests take a stand against implementation of this mischievous
exercise?
*** *** *** *** ***
Yes most of this will go over people’s heads. They will take the change and do it and wonder what it’s all about. There was a lack of collegiality about it all. For dialogue to take place with church authorities the language used by Catholics for Ministry needs to be free from over emotion and cordial so as to invite dialogue.
*** *** *** *** ***
Beyond translation into English, there is the challenge of translation of Latin/English into an
Indigenous language!
*** *** *** *** ***
The proposed Latinized translation is but the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is that this Pope and his ‘bodyguards’ at the top are hell bent on putting their own spin on VAT II. Consequently
principles which were/are so precious to us have been discarded. This comes through so strongly in the way this disaster has been foisted upon us. As bad as the product is (i.e. the translation) the process is even worse.
*** *** *** *** ***
Yes I think we should use the opportunity for greater catechesis, demanding better preparation for all ministry trying to tease out ‘TAKE and DRINK’ and encourage all to participate. Thank you for these articles.
*** *** *** *** ***
It is such a fruitless exercise to use all this energy and resources to produce nothing of the genuine “vernacular” changes that are required including the eradication of sexist language and providing texts that actually reflect the prayer language of the people. There are still people starving in the world while the West (as we are the English speaking group mainly) spends millions on a far from useful outcome for the people in the pews. Indeed for many it will militate against effective celebration and evangelization.
*** *** *** *** ***
As sad as the situation is, I personally see no point in fighting a battle that just cannot be won.
A priest colleague recently pointed‐out to me that the liturgical reforms of the Council of Trent took about 200 years to be full implemented in the universal Church. Maybe the best we can do is to ask the hierarchy to take a "softly, softly" approach to the implementation of the new translation, giving parishes and communities time. I guess, too, that individual communities and priests will just continue doing what they're doing now, adapting the language of the liturgy to make it inclusive and appropriate.

PART II:

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES RECEIVED MID APRIL AND MAY

(THESE INCLUDED RESPONSES FROM PRIESTS, PASTORAL ASSISTANTS AND SOME

PARISH COUNCIL MEMBERS)

RESPONSE A:
Your immediate response? Dismay, disgust and anger at the pomposity of the language.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
There is a certain simplicity to the current text –the clear agenda is to restore Roman‐ism over
Catholicism. As a priest I will not implement any of the changes but this will be mere insurrection and insubordination. Eventually the congregation will be exposed to Roman dictates and will become even more contracted and tenuous.

RESPONSE B:
Your immediate response? Let us all seek permission to use the current version, the ‘Tridentines’ have set the precedent so we would not be doing anything “new”.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Language – “Hunglish” is English spoked by Hungarians is this new language “Latish” or Latlish” Spelling – what makes American (Webster) spelling so wonderful as to be awarded Canonical
approval? The whole idea and process was flawed from the start. The bits that some people were invited to comment on had in fact been submitted to Rome before they even got to us. Paul Collins was way too polite, George Pell is not to be trusted.

RESPONSE C:
Your immediate response? Dismay and disappointment at your rather negative attitude. Further
division in an already too divided church.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Perhaps a more important question is whether I intend to get behind and support this new
translation and encourage parishioners to accept it and grow to love it. The answer to that question is YES. In the interests of fairness could not a positive critique of the new translation have been included as well as Paul Collins – rather predictable – negative critique?

RESPONSE D:
Your immediate response? There are so many other issues that are more urgent. Why is the Latin text so untouchable?
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The emphasis that liturgical language and conversational language are different genres.
We accept that people are comfortable in scientific/technological/computer genres, but we hesitate in promoting liturgical genre. The words of consecration “for many” the Gloria and Creed seem to be using a language that is more akin to Eastern rite liturgies. I hope that the catechesis period opens up for worshippers the depth of our sacramental heritage. We need to present a united front – I hope this exercise also becomes a unifying issue.

RESPONSE E:
Your immediate response? A retrograde step at best.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The new translation will have only one result – unnecessary confusion. The Catholic Church is facing
many problems at present with dwindling Mass attendance; this is not the time to introduce what amounts to be ‘cosmetic’ changes to the liturgy of the Mass and cause further complications.

RESPONSE F:
Your immediate response? One of disgust
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
That people weren’t consulted. The work of ICEL and the workers have been ignored. It seems the Vatican can ride rough shod over everyone and get away with it. Those of us in leadership positions should encourage the faithful to be aware of, listen to. feel the changes when introduced and feed the results back. Perhaps a year after the changes begin, a forthright group like yourselves could act as that resource. That’s my hope

RESPONSE G:
Your immediate response? I’m not happy with the process – we needed change and were having it before the work of ICEL got side‐lined.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Maybe some of the changes will be okay but I’m just trying to ignore it all at the moment! And will in all likelihood ignore it as far as possible when it comes out. ‘Tantum quantamus’ as they used to say.

RESPONSE H:
Your immediate response? I realise that some English translation needed to improve – but why ask us to use literal English from Latin often is does not make sense, also I like to use women and men.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The difficulty is using English that is no longer in use and the inappropriate literal translation which makes it difficult to pronounce and respond. I would like to see the committee in Rome give a literal translation of ‘Australiania’. They would have difficulty.

RESPONSE I:
Your immediate response? Anger – what an abuse of power forcing on the English speaking people of God that which they have not asked for.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
1. We were not consulted
2. What is wrong with ordinary English
3. The attempt to “reform the reform”
4. I will not say “and with your spirit”!!
5. Rome is deaf /will not listen
Something desperately needs to be done re Papal and Curial power. This arrogant, imperialistic
persona must be challenged.

RESPONSE J:
Your immediate response? My heart dropped. A feeling of “this is so unnecessary”, a loss of
something precious that we have. An anger at something imposed from the top overriding local
churches.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Cowering language. Slavish translation of the Latin into awkward English expression. Unnecessary changes rather than giving more variety of texts to use. This has become a power issue rather than pastoral/liturgical/ prayer issue. Our people today are not peasants. They are educated, intelligent and able to have and express opinions. They will not like this approach, many will be offended by it, some will cease attending Mass.

Respondent K:
Re Paul Collins' booklet on changes to liturgy: I am satisfied with the proposed changes and reject Collins' view of the matter.

RESPONSE L:
Your immediate response? The proposed changes are an attempt to wind back another
achievement eg. Vatican II which continues to be demonized as the sole cause of all the turmoil
since the 60s.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
(1)The people of God are actually satisfied with the current translation and there is no legitimate
reason for change. (2) The lack of consultation with those most affected.
(3) The return of archaic language which does not flow freely.
If I wish to continue working as a priest, I will have little option but to fall into line. However, this will be done with no enthusiasm and that lack of enthusiasm will no doubt be evident.

RESPONSE M:
Your immediate response? I agree that the laity should be able to read the proposed words and
express their greeting. For me some of those lines are shocking.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
I believe it expresses clearly and simply the Eucharistic Liturgy. All directors of Business/Health and Education Organisations involve people’s responses to proposed changes, so it smacks of Roman arrogance to just push ahead regardless.

RESPONSE N:
Your immediate response? Disappointment.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Translation of the Latin makes for a quite silly English translation – making no provision for acceptable English. As all the power rests with Rome, I doubt that opposition will amount to anything.

RESPONSE O:
Your immediate response? Priests will need to prepare how they pray the new translations. They will not be able to rush them. I think that where the language is not inclusive priests will do what they do now – improvise – they will not be slaves to the translation
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The new translations are a fuller and richer rendition as the last ones omitted large sections of the prayers. Some of the prayers are too long and convoluted. Some English words used are not suitable for 2010. Balancing the negative with the positive I think that we will not gain a lot from the new translations. The process has not been good from an Australian point of view – too narrow and too much Roman Control. But it is too late to change things. My approach is to flow with what we will have and enjoy the many improvements. Exclude the disadvantages and use pastoral common sense to bring inclusive language into the process.

RESPONSE P:
Your immediate response? I was hoping for a translation that was more poetic, musical and
beautiful, instead we get archaic, clumsy and bad English.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
1) Creed ‐ the Nicene Creed (as in the original creed) was always meant to be a communal
(we believe) expression of faith.
2) Christ died for ‘many’ rather than ‘all’ is simply heresy.
What does it say about our ecumenical relationships when we are prepared to throw out ALL THE
COMMON TEXTS OF THE VARIOUS English speaking churches?

RESPONSE Q:
Your immediate response? This new translation is old fashioned and a backward step.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Gloria: New form: “praise, bless and adore” – “You take away the sins of the world” (repeated
unnecessarily.)
Creed: New form: The use of ‘I’. When praying as a community it should be ‘We’. Further use of old fashioned language – ‘visible and invisible’, ‘begotten’ ‘consubstantial’, being the most outstanding.

RESPONSE R:
Your immediate response? Anger, disappointment, , more of the out of touch, male, clerical church.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
Lack of consultation, especially with the laity and with those working in Parish life eg. Parish priests and pastoral associates. I fail to see how a change of words will bring any change of heart or change of relationship, which seems to be the claim being made by those supporting the New Translation.

RESPONSE S:
Your immediate response? I am impressed by Fr Ryan’s suggestion – it’s more constructive than the alternative of simply ignoring the new translation when it’s implemented; and more charitable.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
I was perfectly happy with the ICEL drafts of 13 years ago. The new version is distracting in its idiosyncratic style and detracts from prayerfulness of heart and mind. The existing translation can be a bit banal here & there, but what I saw of ICEL drafts seemed to address that. I wish the enormous sums spent drawing up this new translation nightmare could have been spent on helping parish priests find ways to make Mass more attractive to families, children and young people.

RESPONSE T:
Your immediate response? As usual I am disappointed that our Church leaders don't understand the art of dialogue and listening to its people in the pews.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
I feel that there are a whole lot of other issues that should be being dealt with and it won't make our people any more responsive to the Mass or anything else for that matter.
I am concerned at the movement to the far right of our priests coming out of the seminaries who are bent on taking us back to prehistoric times!!!!!! Thank you for keeping the dream alive for the few of us who still love our church and want it to be loved by all and sundry!!!! God bless.

RESPONSE U:
Your immediate response? Why is it necessary?
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The Mass is a community celebration, why change the ‘we’ to ‘I’? People are familiar with the
current wording and it doesn’t seem to me that changing it would encourage more people to attend Mass.

RESPONSE V:
Your immediate response? That I had to re‐read the text numerous times in order to
digest/understand the meaning.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
That the vocabulary/grammar make the text more removed from the general English spoken these days thus making it more difficult to relate to the meaning. Most people will attend Mass if they can relate to the ‘message’ and not everyone has the level of literacy required to interpret overly descriptive text from the past.

RESPONSE W:
Thankyou for sending out the material on the proposed new English translation of the Mass.
• I am distressed at the idea of the imposition of language which appears contrived and
extravagant in place of that which is meaningful but simple, so immediately I ask "Why?"
• From the examples I have read, the English translation appears pedantic. The new wording
seems convoluted, superfluous and the proposed language, slightly artificial. As a child I
enjoyed the mystery of Latin. It seemed enigmatic, not wholly understandable and,
therefore, intriguing. In my adult years I have grown to appreciate the simplicity of prayer in
the vernacular, understanding that dialogue with the Lord need not be verbose to be
meaningful.
• Is it change for change sake? Has the Church hierarchy knowledge that God is displeased
with our present form of prayer and thanksgiving? I understand that the translation has
been underway for some years but many will see it's introduction as a distraction from the
numerous important issues which should be of concern to the Church, which the Church in
Rome ought to be expending its thoughts and energies on. I would support a case for
"Don't" rather than "Wait"!
Many thanks for the stimulus and opportunity to comment.

RESPONSE X:
Your immediate response?
I was thrilled to read Paul Collins contribution. I agree with him.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
The poor English structure of the prayers and stilted phrases. The screaming lack of consultation with the faithful. The result is a fine example of ‘verbal ballet’ as Sebastian More writes of ‘just head talk’.

RESPONSE Y:
Your immediate response? ‘Sadness’, sadness about the lack of openness, dialogue and involvement of English speaking expertise in the development of the new text for the English Missal. In works of translation, linguistic expertise should take precedence.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you?
From the examples of English translation that I’ve read, it is obvious that the text has emerged from non‐English speakers. The text (again of what I’ve seen) are pedantic and archaic and out of touch.
Obedience to Holy See is required in matters of Faith. Is obedience slavishly required in matters of poorly developed texts which are also poorly ‘grammar‐ed’ and lacking in real meaning for the faithful? Couldn’t we delay the implementation of the new text until further reviews are made? I certainly support the stance being presented – Wait!!!

RESPONSE Z:
Your immediate response? I am saddened by the seeming imposition of this change with little or no consultation, very few people see the need or even expressed a need for change. I think it is a backward movement.
What aspects of the English translation do you appreciate or what issues most concern you? I do not think that changing words makes the liturgy – The principles on which the translation are being based are very questionable – and why go back only to the 16th century as the benchmark of authentic worship? I am not enthusiastic or excited at all. I love liturgy that is prayerful, inspiring, alive and welcoming – this ‘reform of the reform’ does not reflect the Spirit of God at work in the world.
Is it possible to publish the ICEL texts prepared before 2001 I would be happy to use them!

RESPONSE Z2:
Thank you for letter and enclosures at the National Liturgical Conference in Perth one keynote
speaker, translator Mgr Bruce Harbet, said “the train is leaving the station”. The new translation is for the English speaking world and for those countries who speak English as a second language. The translation is for the whole world. Not everyone is satisfied. There are missed opportunities. The task now is to get on board and make the most of the new Missal.
The implementation resource ‘One Body One Spirit in Christ’ will be marvellous catechical tool – and it is Australian! And for the whole world too. The work on the Roman Missal is never finished – and this new edition will not be the last.

                      Summary of More Detailed Responses

                                                  Paul Collins

Australian priests have always been noted for their pastoral concern and their down-to-earth attitudes. The responses that WATAC and Catholics for Ministry received confirm this, but what is also worth noting is how thoughtful and intelligently critical they are.

Out of all the responses a couple of themes constantly emerge. Firstly, priests are deeply concerned about the pastoral impact this new literal translation will have on Mass-goers and more generally on the Catholic community. Many commented that the whole exercise is more about power and imposition than ministerial concern. While some thought that the more literal translation and elevated rhetoric might have a positive pastoral impact, the large majority felt that the clumsy, archaic, pseudo-sacred language will alienate more far people than it will attract. Another issue that many commented on was the non-inclusive nature of the language used and the impact this has, particularly on women. A number were also concerned that the ‘temple police’ will become active again in parishes and the Catholic ‘culture wars’ be renewed. As one priest put it ‘The liturgy which is supposed to be the coming together of the people (the communio) will become another “war zone”. What a tragedy.’

In this brief piece I want to reflect on the more detailed responses we received from priests who have a good knowledge of the background to the whole process and who had obviously given a lot of thought to the issues in play in this exercise.

A number of these priests showed real concern about ‘the many archaic words and expressions, too numerous to mention’, as one of them said. Many words and phrases seem to have been introduced ‘simply to create a “liturgical style”, which subverts the process of translation into the vernacular.’ Others were concerned that there is diversity in contemporary English usage and they questioned whether one English translation could adequately cover all Anglophones. ‘This is an arrogant assumption of power’, says one priest, ‘which should have horrified all episcopal conferences, but which seems to have been taken for granted.’ Another priest commented ‘The process is flawed if we expect general acceptance of the new texts … The principles of translation seem to be out of touch with the language used by ordinary Australians.’ He concluded: ‘It is such a fruitless exercise to use all this energy and resources to produce nothing of the genuine “vernacular” changes that are required including the eradication of sexist language and providing texts that actually reflect the prayer language of the people.’

One of the basic principles of Liturgicam authenticam (LA) was fidelity to the Latin original. However, one priest commented that the new version ‘reflects the political agenda of the [translators] who are forced to break their supposedly inflexible rule of literal translation, because … it does not suit their hidden agenda.’ He gives two examples. The first is the translation of the words praeclarum calicem in the new translation of Eucharistic Prayer (EP) I. The new translation renders this ‘precious chalice’. However, the adjective praeclarus actually means ‘very bright’, ‘very beautiful’, ‘brilliant’, ‘magnificent’. He points out that ‘Fr Barry Craig, a liturgist from Cairns diocese, demonstrated definitively in a fine article in Worship (July 2007, pp 290-313) … that all the Patristic data would favour something like “inebriating cup”.’

His second example is also from EP I. He says ‘The words omnium circumstantium literally mean “all standing around [the altar]”, reflecting the practice of earlier centuries when pews did not exist and the whole congregation did actually stand around the altar.’ However, the Latin is translated ‘all gathered here’ which is not what it means at all. A third example also concerns the Latin verb sto - which means to stand, or be stationed, or even to stand on ceremony. This priest points out that after the words of consecration in EP II the word astare - meaning to ‘stand up’ or ‘stand erect’ is translated ‘to be in your presence’. He comments that ‘the clear and venerable theology of both these prayers gives equal right to all the baptized to stand together around the altar for the liturgy of the Eucharist, and no slippery mistranslation can change that wonderful fact!’

One of the most informed and balanced responses came from a priest with high level professional qualifications in liturgy and long experience in the liturgical formation. He said that ‘I agree with much of what is written in the articles that you have included in your correspondence, especially the lack of appreciation of culture and context that comes with the erroneous notion of an “ideal” English liturgical language that is, in fact, based on Victorian era English.’ Having said that, he says ‘I do not wish to “wait”’, as Father Ryan suggests. This priest points out that the Sisters of Mercy-sponsored Frayneworks in Melbourne are preparing a ‘very professional’ interactive DVD as ‘a formation resource for the new translation’ for the whole English-speaking world. He says that the DVD looks at ‘the whole of the Eucharist, not just the changes in translation’ and emphasizes that this type of formation is very much needed.

He also addresses in some detail the problematic translation of the words pro multis in the consecration of the wine . ‘The interpretation of what this “means” and what the tradition gives us in these words is very complex - not as simple as the universal meaning of salvation given in your articles. The language of consecration in the Mass is symbolic and as such is best presented in a way that shows the inexhaustible, multi-meanings of the action of taking the cup. It is all about interpretation.’ He says the present translation ‘is just plain wrong and limiting’ and that we need to get it right this time. But the proposed translation ‘is limiting of the meaning too … It is not about force feeding “all”. We are here to persuasively invite not to sit back because Jesus has “done” for “all”.’

The basic question in this whole debate, he says, is ‘Do we need a change of translation?’ and the answer is a ‘resounding yes’. He points out there was much in the previous translation that needed to be improved, and ‘to be fair, there is a lot that is good about the new translation.’ Nevertheless the ‘huge challenge’ facing us is that ‘the translation that we have now has become part of our present Catholic culture and as such is chiseled in stone in the minds and, more importantly, the hearts of people.’ This means that the huge task that faces the church now is ‘to form people, to educate them as to “why” some of the changes are necessary.’ He points out that this didn’t happen after Vatican II. He also says that ‘some of our brothers over the last 45 years have a lot to answer for too. I have been at Eucharists that were not Eucharists as priests waffled on in a narrative that they had invented leaving out, for example, the epiclesis and anamnesis and ultimately helping, unwittingly, to lead to the changes that resulted in  Liturgicam authenticam and this translation.’

He also says that we need a sense of history which will require us to wait out the current dominant ‘restorationist’ putsch. ‘History tells us that the restorationists do not win out in the end. We need them to run their course, to have their day in the sun and let the “dialectic” work.’ In other words we need to get through this period quickly, so it won’t help to try to get church authorities to ‘wait’ and put off the imposition of the new translation. He also points out that despite all the gains from the liturgical reforms of the post-Vatican II era, we have still lost so many of Generations X and Y, i.e. people up to the age of 35-40. He says that part of the problem is the ‘lack of understanding of liturgy as … thanksgiving, not entertainment, of being about communal life, not about “me”, of being about the presence of God in life always, not in a magic moment.’ He also emphasizes that formation in prayer us needed, and he hopes the proposed DVD will help in all of this.  He says ‘It might take 45 years but my part in the history of it will not be wasted. I want to start now, not “wait”.’

Another priest examined in careful detail both the pragmatics and the canon law surrounding the new translation. Underlying his comments is the conviction that ‘There are always two sides to an argument. We need to be careful to see the whole picture, not to allow ourselves to condemn something without proper discernment.’

While ‘one might question the wisdom of introducing the proposed changes’ he points out that people today ‘are quite flexible and adaptive’ and are used to change. He says that ‘My experience is that our liturgies sometimes can be rather bland’ and that ‘Perhaps having a more solemn form of language might even produce some good and enable people to move towards something that sets their minds and hearts on the spiritual, a more profoundly focused experience.’ He points out that both the pope and the college of bishops have approved the changes and that ‘our church has a rather poor record with regard to being democratic … [so] why do we think in this matter there might be far-reaching consultation beyond the college of bishops? That would be rather radical.’ It is up to the bishops to consult the presbyterate and the people in their dioceses.

He also says that it is a mistake to regard the new English version as a betrayal of Vatican II. However, he says that ‘I think Fr Ryan offers an excellent suggestion in the title of his article; rather than make hasty assertions perhaps it would be prudent to wait and allow the various dioceses to engage in clergy preparation so that we fully understand the nature of the changes … [then] take it to the parishioners. This is not a form of clericalism but rather to acknowledge that this is the way our church works.’

Having conceded that the new translation is ‘poor English [in] that it literally translates the Latin text, which is not conducive to modern English’ and that ‘there is clearly going to be some opposition to … the proposed changes’, he makes the interesting observation that ‘I say proposed merely because at this time it would appear that the law has not yet been promulgated in accordance with Canon 8 §1, which requires its publication in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.’ This was written on 31 March 2010. Archbishop Mark Coleridge said on 3 May that the Vatican had approved the missal; presumably it has been published now in the AAS.

Several priests referred to the article by liturgical scholar and former member of ICEL, Father Tom Elich of Brisbane in Liturgy News (March 2010). This article is a splendid summary of the views held, as far as I can tell, by the vast majority of Australian priests. He says LA ‘is a poor document, an embarrassment for the Church.’ It restricts the right of bishops’ conferences to make decisions about the liturgy and gives control of the whole process to the Vatican. He points out that in the 1980s and 1990s a whole new English version was prepared by ICEL. ‘This rich version of the missal has been studiously and publicly ignored. The forthcoming translation is always compared with the text we have used for almost forty years and never with the text we should have already been using for a decade.’ He says it is amusing that some bishops involved with the new translation are now claiming to ‘understand the rich biblical allusions to be found in the liturgical texts’ when many people had discovered those treasures years ago. He refers to the criticisms of Bishop Donald Trautman of Eire, Pennsylvania saying that the new text uses ‘convoluted expressions, incomprehensible words and ungrammatical sentences in its attempt to be faithful to the Latin.’

Yet in the end Tom Elich says that ‘while I can’t pretend … we are getting lucid, poetic prayers, we should do our best to enable ‘the Church to retain its voice at prayer.’ In the same vein another priest says ‘I am resigned to the fact that it will happen, but I am not enthusiastic about it … It is an imposition from above about which there is not much I can do.’ Another priest says ‘When the dreaded days of imposition arrive I will do what I can to conform. Of course I am getting on in age, so I might have to appeal for leniency because of rapidly disappearing brain cells. I certainly won’t be saying “for the good of many”. As for “And with your Spirit”, I don’t think that will work here [his parish]. It would only provoke rude jokes about my consumption of Bundy rum. The Gloria is not too bad … We might skip the Creed. Too many Greco-Roman hang-ups.’

But it is his conclusion that really matters and it probably sums up the pastoral attitude of most Australian priests: ‘Whatever happens we will not let anything keep us from meeting Christ in the word and the sharing of the Eucharist.’ Precisely!
                                                                                                   Canberra 1 July 2010.