The Recovering Choir Director

Enjoy the Latin parts as much as you can.

As for the English, well - Those of us who are waiting for the new translations may have to wait for a long, long time - if it happens at all.

It looks like the proposed new Translation of the Ordo Missae 2002 is in for some very choppy waters.

I’ve just received OCP’s e-newsletter announcing the forthcoming National Meeting of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions (FLDC) to be held in Orlando Florida next month. There’s a report that the biggest and most powerful of group of liturgists in all of the U.S. might present a Position Statement that is not very favorable to the draft translation of the Order of the Mass.

Here’s the link to their website:

http://www.fdlc.org/NationalMeetings/Orlando/2004_ORLANDO.htm

Here’s the link to their Preamble and Statement on the Ordo Missae:

http://www.fdlc.org/NationalMeetings/Orlando/2004_Proposed_PositionStatements.htm

“PREAMBLE
Whereas over 40 years ago, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy authorized translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue (CSL, no. 36);

Whereas from the use of the first edition of the Roman Missal to today, the responses of the congregation during Mass have become so well known and ingrained that they are voiced from the heart;

Whereas the first Draft English Translation of the Ordo Missae changes those congregational responses, from the start of the Mass through its conclusion;

Whereas these changes will render obsolete almost 40 years of established musical settings of the liturgical texts;

Whereas it benefits the Church’s liturgical prayer that there be a balance among the principles of fidelity to the Latin, the creation of a sacred vernacular and respect for the long-standing familiarity with the texts;

Whereas the prayers of the priest celebrant are not readily understandable when proclaimed and necessitate an undue reliance of the people on the privatized practice of reading the liturgical texts;

Whereas the prayers of the priest celebrant are grammatically and rhythmically difficult to proclaim;

Whereas even though Pope John Paul II often has expressed the need for further unity among Christian Churches and ecclesial Communities, many of the proposed texts in the Draft English Translation ignore the unity that already exists in the use of common liturgical texts (e.g., the Glory to God, the Nicene and Apostles Creeds and the Holy.)

“STATEMENT
1. It is the position of the delegates to the 2004 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions

2. that the Board of Directors of the FDLC

3. urge the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy

4. to promote a careful and deliberate process of translation of the Ordo Missae

5. so that the principles of full, active and conscious participation

6. are not compromised by a hasty translation

7. which jeopardizes the familiarity enjoyed by both the priest-celebrant and the people

8. in their prayers and responses.

We request that a time line and procedure for implementation of this resolution be set by the FDLC Board of Directors at the January 2005 Board Meeting.”

Ugh!

Amazing-
They seem to forget that the Latin responses ingrained in people were changed overnight.

Also, their draft itself contains a lot of “high” language e.g. “whereas” etc. Seems a bit inconsistent with the typical “progressive” insistence on “everyday” language in liturgical translations.

“The FDLC statement seems clear and reasonable enough, doesn’t it? Just tells them to take their time and get it right.”

No, it doesn’t because no, it doesn’t.

It tells them, don’t change it because the people won’t like changes NOW. They liked them before, but now, right or wrong, the stuff they know is the stuff they know, so right or wrong we should keep it.

“You can actually thank English-speaking bishops.”
As I said, people LIKE the FDLC.

It should be remembered that quite a number of “established” musical settings of the current responses are already obsolete, as they do not even conform to the approved form of the current responses. When that gets taken seriously, the position can be given the credibility it eventually deserves. Right now, there is a fair bit of hypocrisy that may serve only to discredit what would have been an otherwise fair point.

“But knowing how powerful the Bishops’ own liturgy committees are (they are the implementing arm of the dioceses for every liturgical document that is released), we might not even see an improved translation.”

I’m curious, would a Cdl Mahoney, after dispensing his presbyterate from following Redemptionis Sacramentum, also dispense them from using the new missal if he didn’t care for it? or just never get around to implementing it?