Scattered Thoughts on the Roman Missal

I reread my post on the new Roman Missal, and had some regrets.  Not for the feelings expressed, but at what I perceived as the harsh tone, especially at the end.  My criticism of the critics hasn't changed; I still think there are some priests complaining for petty reasons.  But I didn't acknowledge that there are also more than a few well trained and experienced liturgists who have legitimate problems with the new translation, and the process by which it came about.  My guess is that, while they may have bones to pick with the particulars of the new text, it's the process that bothers them more.  As the person who commented wrote there is a feeling that the present text was imposed, and there has been concerns all along that the recommendations of the American bishops weren't given a proper hearing.

I'm not going to dispute that.  I understand that Cardinal George of Chicago, for instance, fought hard to retain the "Christ has died..." as an option for the memorial acclamation, but since it is particular to English, not appearing in the Latin, he was overruled.  In fact if it's not in the Latin addition, it's not in the new Missal.  As was pointed out at the workshop I went to, even the Latin order of Mass, which is in the back of the current sacramentary, is omitted since such an appendix does not exist in the original.  Was this too rigid an approach?  Should long standing local customs have been taken into account when approving the new text?  Again, I can't argue with the logic or the sentiment.

But it brings us around to the original translations that appeared in English in the 1970's.  It's been argued that if ICEL had been less creative and more faithful to begin with the changes now wouldn't have been so jarring.  And I hate to beat a dead horse, but in introducing the changes there has been maybe too much politeness in contrasting the dynamic equivalence versus formal equivalence approach.  I'm not sure the original translators were always interested in capturing the same meaning using simpler language, as much as shaping the meaning to conform to their theological point of view.  These concerns are not new, and debate over the quality, as well as the fidelity, of the soon to be retired translation has been going on since it came out.

As for the question I get a lot, why change at all, all I can do is answer with another question; why has it taken so long?  We are almost a decade behind other places in implementing this new translation.  There are new canonized saints, votive celebrations, Eucharistic prayers, and blessings that we've been deprived of because of all the haggling.  Yes, some of the objections are valid.  But everyone needs to take a step back and understand that this does not represent the final revision of the Mass texts.  If we hold that the liturgy develops over the centuries, this represents one, very small step in that process.

I am presently in possession of a copy of the Roman Missal, which is being delivered to parishes this month, and have begun to study it, along with a guide book.  Next time I take this topic up I'll give my impressions of the book itself.