Fr Anthony Ruff OSB, until recently the moderator of the Pray Tell blog, has written an open letter on the new English translation of the Missal of Paul VI. He is not very happy, poor monk.
“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.”
With just one or two changes, this could have been written forty years ago, with just one difference. What he’s objecting to is in fact not a new missal, but a new translation, a more accurate one. Forty years ago a massive change took place in the calendar, the rite, the language, you name it. In 2011 we’re going to be expected to use an accurate translation of that missal. What’s the big deal?
Perhaps it’s the fact that Rome is exercising its authority? Well, so be it. It has that authority. We’re Catholics you know. If one believes that “legitimate episcopal authority” is violated by the exercise of Papal primacy, one is an Episcopalian. Depending on exactly how one believes that authority is "accountable to the wider church" one may not even be that.
Isn’t it strange how those committed to the modern liturgy are so inflexible and want to cling to a translation of a rite that is a mere forty years old. Well, the translation won’t live much longer (unless Father Ruff, too, hopes to get a Society of Paul VI going). Time will tell about the rite itself.
Forty years ago many more people suffered much, much more than those modern liturgists committed to bad translations claim they are suffering now.
Get a sense of perspective Father, and remember the obedience due to ecclesiastical authority, especially from monks.
Fr. Anthony Ruff is a good priest. I disagree with him on almost everything. However he is a man of integrity and he is entitled to his view. He was a fair webmaster/editor during his tenure at PrayTell. Don't dis him just because we traditional Catholics have won this battle.
ReplyDeleteI predict that many "progressive" parishes will either get an indult to use the Sacramentary or will simply disregard the new liturgical law. So? Most of us have fled St. Happy Clappy "Catholic" (?) Sharing and Caring Community for an EF or Eastern Catholic parish years ago. Let the liberal and low church Catholics do what they want on their own time. Ain't hurting us except when we're on vacation and have to put up with Fr. Charismatic Sociopath's improv Eucharistic Prayer.
Amen!
ReplyDeleteWith just one or two changes, this could have been written forty years ago, with just one difference.
ReplyDeleteBut he's not writing about 40 years ago, he's writing about today, so engage in his argument in the present.
What he’s objecting to is in fact not a new missal, but a new translation, a more accurate one.
He's not opposed to a more accurate translation in principle; he's opposed to this particular one, both because of the process which created it and because it is not accurate as some would believe. Something happened between 2008 and 2010 that resulted in many changes being made, many of which produced deviations from Lit. Auth. and the Ratio Translationis. Otherwise fluid and understandable prayers have been tweaked in a confusing manner (Preface VII in Ordinary Time is one good example).
I do not think Fr. Ruff's tears as crocodile tears.
When I think of Our Lord's teachings on service and love and unity I wonder if priests like Fr. Ruff really do understand what those three terms entail. Service and love, no problem. But unity...well, logic would dictate that those faithful ministers of the Church who want to build up unity in the spirit of fulfilling Our Lord's teachings would actively and publicly support the actions of the Bishops, so long as they were in keeping with the orthodox Faith of the Church.
ReplyDeleteFr. Ruff, I dare say you have placed yourself at odds with true Catholic unity, and all in the name of an ideology that, quite frankly, is out-dated and wreaks of Protestantism and congregationalism.
As for the translation itself, well...it's a lot like a baby being diapered. You can kick and scream and cry and whine all you want, but...well, it's gonna happen. So, deal with it!
Way back at the very start of "Pray Tell" I commented to P. Ruff that I came of age, at a Benedictine institution, during and immediately after Vat.II; and that all and sundry were told to either like it of lump it. There was no tiptoeing around. Enie, meanie, minie moe, catch a liberal by the toe--if he hollers, let him go!
ReplyDelete--William
"If one believes that “legitimate episcopal authority” is violated by the exercise of Papal primacy, one is an Episcopalian."
ReplyDeleteCorrect. How is it that a monk, no less, misses the fact that the Church is not a democracy where the Liturgy is subject to vote? The Mass, rendered bland for the past 40 years largely due to the shoddy paraphrase produced by a commission hijacked by ideologues, is being restored through a necessary act by the one authority capable of providing the clarity and proper intellectual and spiritual orientation to return dignified language to the Liturgy.
"When I think of how secretive the translation process was,... ." Secretive, no. Prudently private, i.e., restricting access in order to, among other reasonable considerations, protect the Liturgy from manipulation - yes. It would not be difficult to imagine that the translation process could have gone on for decades had the Holy See not stepped in to purify and protect the translation process.
When one considers the nature of the whining on the net by liberal opponents of the corrected translation, charges of "secrecy", "little consultation" and "deception and mischief" should be seen for what they really are: empty criticisms and desperate attempts to grab power that does not belong to the would-be usurpers of magisterial authority. Dynamic equivalency, that tattered banner of the liberal magisterium, has rightly been rejected and so, too, the mob which promoted it has been disbanded and driven into the shadows from whence they came.
Fr. Ruff's rant reads like a petulant child's tantrum.
Being able to read several languages I have learned to dislike translations, in this case let us just go back to the Latin...
ReplyDeleteWell the Irish Association of Catholic Priests has weighed in on this also – and in similar vein.
ReplyDelete”It will create ‘chaos and confusion’…” Ahem, and what have we had for the past 40+ years, Fathers?
"It is particularly ironic that this Latinised, stilted English is being imposed on Irish people who are so blessed with world-renowned poets, playwrights and novelists…" Yes, I’m sure James Joyce could have given us a version that would have been universally…unintelligible.
“…a theologian, said that if implemented, it would discourage the involvement of the people”. Yes, given that the ‘involvement of the people’ has worked so well for several decades now.
“He also warned that parts of the translation used inclusive language insensitive to other Christian churches.” Of course Our Lord was very much into ‘inclusive' language: “sheep”, “goats”, “whited sepulchers”, “thieves”…
And so on, ad nauseum.
For those who dislike the new translation there is a simple solution. USE LATIN!
ReplyDeleteFor those who dislike the new translation there is a simple solution. USE LATIN!
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------------
No, just go back and use the Douai/Rheims translation, or the 2008 Gray Book as a backup translation if the bishops should delay implementing the 2011 Roman Missal.
If Pope Benedict XVI wanted just a Latin liturgy for all Catholics, he would never have given the Anglican Ordinariate almost free reign to develop and implement an ENGLISH liturgy. Good chanc it will be the best English you'll hear in the Catholic Church today. Certainly, it should be the most "sacral". The clunker missal designed to go into effect this year surely won't be that.
Furthermore, the Ordinariates will appeal to more cradle-born Roman Catholics than it will to Anglicans. I predict, the flight of RCatholics to these parishes will have the unintended consequence of reducing the demand for the preservation of the EF of Mass. It will start to fade in popularity as the Cranmerian liturgies become more popular with the masses.
I've always thought, give English speaking Catholics a good ENGLISH liturgy with all the smells and bells (which we've never had) and the desire for the all Latin Mass will begin to take a noise dive. The creation of the Anglican Ordinariates will demonstrate this to be true.
Mr. Pinyan,
ReplyDeleteLet us review your commentary:
The Pimpernel -
"With just one or two changes, this could have been written forty years ago, with just one difference."
Jeff's Response -
"But he's not writing about 40 years ago, he's writing about today, so engage in his argument in the present."
Mr. Pinyan, this is the Liturgical Pimpernel's blog. He is entitled to use an argument that makes use of historic analogy. This is not Pray Tell, wherein the middle of a dialogue boundaries were unilaterally imposed by some of the participants upon others they disagreed with. Very unsporting.
The Pimpernel -
"What he’s objecting to is in fact not a new missal, but a new translation, a more accurate one."
Jeff's Response -
"He's not opposed to a more accurate translation in principle . . ."
Mr. Pinyan, before 2010 was leaked, Father Ruff opposed the 2008 translation. Look at his blog and read the comments over -- the ordinary reasonable person uninitiated into the blog would conclude,after a fair reading of Father Ruff's comments, that Father Ruff was at that time opposed to the then 2008 translation.
Jeff Said -
"[h]e's opposed to this particular one, both because of the process which created it and because it is not accurate as some would believe."
Mr. Pinyan, it is hard to take Father's Ruff's comments seriously - they strike me more as sour grapes over losing his role in the translation process.
As for the issue of accuracy, Mr. Pinayn - Father Ruff's ostensible objection to the 2010 translation is not credible in light of his past carping about the 2008 translation.
Jeff said -
"Something happened between 2008 and 2010 that resulted in many changes being made, many of which produced deviations from Lit. Auth. and the Ratio Translationis. Otherwise fluid and understandable prayers have been tweaked in a confusing manner (Preface VII in Ordinary Time is one good example)."
Mr. Pinyan, this is true, but it is not a justification for Father's Ruff's melodramatic tantrum.
Jeff said -
"I do not think Fr. Ruff's tears as crocodile tears."
Mr. Pinyan, I agree, and with all due deference to the Liturgical Pimpernel, but Father Ruff's actions come across as a public sulking to a audience (America magazine) that would be inclined to agree with him.
Mr. Pinyan, Father Ruff's actions remind me of the actions of Father Curran and others when they signed manifestos published in newspapers and Catholic magazines opposing Pope Paul's encyclical On Human Life in 1968. However, this is not 1968, and the secular media will not be interested because it does not involve sex or a scandal. Therefore, I would rather see you finish your series of books on the new translation. The first book was superb, and I would recommend it to the Liturgical Pimpernel.
James Ignatius McAuley -- Since I do not have a google account, I chose the "anonymous" option as the most practicable way of responding. Thank you for understanding.
To James Ignatius McAuley:
ReplyDelete1. Regarding the "forty years" comment: I understand that the L.P. can use whatever method of argumentation he wishes, but it is too easy (in my opinion) to use the historical analogy to overlook the differences in the details between then and now.
2. Regarding Fr. Ruff's opinion of the 2008 translation: I know he did not favor it either. He has spoken in favor of the ill-fated 1998 text. (It had its strengths and its serious weaknesses, but when it was translating Latin, it did far better than the current text, and yet both were a product of Comme le prevoit.) The propers in the 1998 text are generally quite good (if you can overlook its use of inclusive language).
[I am not a fan of the many innovations of the 1998 translation. Don't get me started!]
3. Regarding Fr. Ruff's concern over the process: I take his comments seriously.
I would rather see you finish your series of books on the new translation.
I am doing the final pass over the second book. It will be ready in a couple of weeks, I guarantee. Fr. Finigan (of the Herm. of Continuity) wrote the foreword.
Mr. Pinyan,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with attacking the argument for historic analogy is that those who refused to talk about the background of the so called 1973 translation were most happy to raise the historic analogy in regards to the 1998 translation. This is inconsistent.
AS an FYI, the present translation we use for the Eucharistic prayers actually goes back to 1968 (and not 1973), and I have an original missal insert for those prayers -- If you would like a copy, I would be glad to provide it -- there is some interesting commentary within the insert.
Respectfully, I find the latinity of the 1998 translation undermined by the use of inclusive language, and, in that sense, weaker than the 2010 translation. For the record, I prefer the 2008 translation.
The 1998 translation innovations -- I agree with you, however, the irony is that many of these innovations were written by a "conservative" monk, Jeremy Driscoll, O.S.B.
I understand that you take Father Ruff seriously, but I do not. Why? While Pray Tell is his blog and it is his prerogative to lay down the ground rules, Father Ruff demonstrated an unfair inconsistency in routinely slapping down or being condescendingly dismissive of comments that reflected conservative viewpoints. True, many of these comments Father Ruff slapped down were just plain stupid, or, at best, poorly articulated, but Father Ruff never held analogous liberal comments to the same level of accountability. I am not the only one to have noticed this discrepancy of Father Ruff's. Father Allan McDonald of the blog Southern Orders has also observed this regrettable tendency.
Again, the concern over the process -- it is hard to take Father Ruff seriously when he has never exhibited the same level of concern over the (similar) process that created the 1998 translation.
I suggest the best thing to do is pray for Father Ruff. I am sure he would appreciate all of the prayers.
I look forward to your new book. In regards to your first book, I daresay that it is the best of all, bar none, of the books I have read on the new translations. That is because you provide, unlike anyone else, a prayerful mystagogical catechises. I would say to all readers of this blog that you should take a hop over to Mr. Pinyan's website and check out his book. It is superb.
Finally, I think it would be nice if you used the "JMJ" over here also. It is a nice touch.
James Ignatius McAuley
“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, "------ Compare this to the way that the text of Paul VI was instituted. I am not sure but I guess there was more collaboration with the bishops, this time than last. There was probably more lay collaboration on this new translation than was forty years ago.
ReplyDeleteTo James Ignatius McAuley and any other interested parties:
ReplyDeletePraying the Mass: The Prayers of the Priest is now in print.
The Liturgical Pimpernel, you might find this of interest. I think it beats the new ICEL translation.
ReplyDelete