New Liturgy? What New Liturgy?

Here is my article on the anniversary of the new translation of the liturgy from National Catholic Register.

  • MI Will

    My thoughts on the new translation one year ago was that in a year 10% of the people and clergy would say the new translation was fantastic, 10% would say it was terrible, and 80% would not notice or care. I think that is more or less true. (Perhaps this is a disappointment for the 20%). I find that I, and many others, still use the pew cards especially for the Creed. I also find that, at least in our church, no one except the choir has copies of the new service music. This means that fewer people sing that music.

  • Supertradmum

    Most of the people, the vast majority in England and in Eire, like it. It is a handful of priests, not the laity, who I have met who object to it. And, most people have all the bits memorized by now, except the changes in the Creed, which still trip up some.

    As to the singing of new settings, most of those are not very good to my conservative ears, especially here in Eire. Most people in the pew here love to sing. It is only a matter of time that they all join in. On the whole, the new translation is successful. The three places where I have been where the priests did not support it I now avoid. God bless your ministry and you are missed in England.

  • Al Bergstrazer

    Six years ago I introduced a new hymnal to my congregation, which was predominantly cattle ranchers and farmers. “New” wasn’t a word they welcomed, but I explained that there’s new as in a new cell phone that you don’t understand, makes you feel stupid for not understanding and will be obsolete before you do understand it, and then there’s new as in a new pair of boots, that you need and once they’re broken in become a second skin.

  • Judy Echaniz

    Just read your Register article on the new translation a year later. Agreed with most but was terribly disheartened by your advising a severe technical restraint that could affect the praying soul through the arts that enrich the Mass because of your fear that such art could be obstructive by calling attention to itself rather than to God. With organ virtuosity saved for the postlude which actually occurs After Mass and is thus exempt, the impact of true art on the soul in prayer During Mass seems outside the competence of the makers of guidelines. As my late father-in-law, a professional musician, said, “You cannot legislate musicality.” On the Extremely rare occasions when it does show up, we should give thanks and fan the flame! Same goes for the best in the visual arts and architecture at Mass. True art can make edification Possible; the Holy Spirit has to do the rest. It’s not a question of how many 32nd notes are written into a composition or how much dissonance is used or even how difficult or simple the composition may be; rather, it is the spiritual connection forged with the person at prayer, Mass being the ultimate prayer. Would you say that the European cathedrals are too much of a good thing because the child in the pew may not grasp all the symbolism? Heaven help us if you do. The real tragedy: How much of our future artistic excellence have we contracepted and aborted? That is what will compromise the next renaissance, for God is as generous as always. True art will always attract; we don’t have to fear it, but we must NOT stifle it.

  • Lisa

    Father, I have an old missal of my grand pa’s from the 1940′s-50′s. It had the Latin on one side and English on the other. The words are exactly as the “new” translation we are using now. I have to LOL. There’s nothing new about it!