What if each parish could use any missal they liked in any approved translation they liked

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samuel_Mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Samuel_Mary

Guest
Would it be a good thing if any Catholic parish, anywhere in the world were equally allowed to use any validly promulgated edition of the Roman Missal (or the equivalent for their sui iuris Church) and any approved translation of it?

Evidently some feel that the 2011 translations in the Mass were ill-advised and the hieratic, courtly and (to their mind) sometimes opaque language separates them from God and impedes the understanding of the people. They would rather use the 1970 translation. Conversely, some feel that the 2011 translation is fantastic, a step in the right direction - and a reversal would be un-pastoral to those people.

Elsewhere, some people do not feel that Summorum Pontificum goes far enough and that their access to the Mass of Blessed John XXIII is still unduly restricted. Still others may prefer to celebrate according to the Missal of 1965 or 1967 - where the liturgical reforms had gone further than 1962, but still produced a Mass very different to that of 1970 - but they find that this Motu Proprio allows for no half measures.

So, why not apply the principal of subsidiarity and put the decision on parish level, to be decided by the pastor after ongoing consultation with his flock?

After all, we hear a lot in recent decades that our ‘unity does not depend on uniformity’. That what is essential is unity of doctrine and not of practice.

We have Pope Francis calling for a ‘synodal’ Church and countless other voices over the last few decades calling for a ‘collegial’ one - isn’t this just further devolution of decision-making along those lines?

Likewise, the Holy Father’s successor Pope Benedict XVI said ‘‘what has been called sacred for previous generations cannot suddenly be called harmful’’ - this logic must apply to the Mass of 1962, for sure - but why not also to the Missal translations of 1970 ?

If every Missal and every approved translation has at one time been judged officially, authentically Catholic and sufficient for the nourishment of the faithful, and that judgement has never been revoked or called into question - then would be harmful in letting every community act according to its own taste? You may still end up some local disagreements, but they would be kept precisely that, local. Parishes could advertise which year Missal they were using, maybe with a little blurb explaining the ethos of their parish - and locals can pick their preferred style of - equally Catholic and approved - spiritual nourishment

Ultimately, we could end up with that most elusive but valuable of things - unity in diversity.

What do you think ? Good idea or terrible idea?
 
I like the concept, but that could be divisive - Many already argue that the OF, when compared to the EF, varies way too much on a parish to parish level. Doing something like this would infinitely expand that variance, IMO, fracturing the Church even more.

Then again, the Church fully embraces different rites like the Galican, Ambrosian, and even the Anglican use.

I am undecided. This thread could be fascinating.
 
I think the Mass should be the same no matter where I go.
There is comfort in knowing what to expect no matter what Catholic Church you step into.
 
And that’s the beauty of the Extraordinary Form. In the USA, Rome, the Phillipines, or Poland, it’s the same everywhere.

Then again, some people dont like Latin, which is fine. 😀😀
 
Maximilian75 said:
And that’s the beauty of the Extraordinary Form. In the USA, Rome, the Phillipines, or Poland, it’s the same everywhere.
Click to expand...
That’s also a flaw of the Extraordinary Form, as it creates uniformity in places where culturally, Latin and Gregorian chant have no history or where education levels and poverty make following the Latin difficult, even with a side translation, and in some places it can have overtones of colonization.

That does not mean I think the EF should be abolished, but it should probably be recognized that it is a Western European rite proper to Western European or derivative countries (i.e US, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa), and thus prioritized for availability in those parts of the world. That is its “market” as it were.

It’s an important enough point for the Church that even in pre-Conciliar days, she allowed other languages by indult in mission territories, for example for Jesuit missionaries.
YourNameHere said:
I think the Mass should be the same no matter where I go.

There is comfort in knowing what to expect no matter what Catholic Church you step into.
Click to expand...
The Church promotes unity without uniformity. She recognizes cultural differences. The priority is ministering to the people of the areas she is established in, as far as local Masses go. In large cities of course, such as Seoul which I used to visit frequently on business, there are International Masses in different languages.

Fortunately the structure of the Mass remains uniform enough so that even in a foreign language it is possible to understand what is going on, even if we don’t understand what is being said.
 
I’ve never gotten the whole reliance on the Missal thing.

If we attend Mass without reading, pondering, and praying the readings first, and rely on the proclamation being made during the Liturgy of the Word, then we are neglecting our obligation to participate rather than observe the Mass.

As far as the exact verbiage used in the Order of the Mass, any misstep whether intentional or accidental may make aspects of the Mass illicit, but rarely–very rarely–invalid.

Luke Chapter 10:38-42 puts things in perspective when I worry about such things.

Pax et Bonum!
 
I just think you would get constant arguments within parishes. Probably lots of threads here about said arguments 😁
 
Eh… I would disagree with you there.

IMO, the whole point of the Mass is the confection of the Eucharist.

We can appreciate the Bible elsewhere. The Eucharist is only in the Mass (and in Eucharistic Adoration, but Potato, Potahto.
 
You ought to know what to expect in terms of the basic structure of the Mass, and the doctrine conveyed, for sure. That’s unaltered by previous liturgical reform and would be (should be) unaltered by my proposal, too.

But in terms of being able to expect a uniform experience in all aspects, it’s never going to happen in a Church which spans 230 countries, many different cultures even with that, many different rites, sui iuris Churches, all age groups, and so forth.
 
I think there ought to be the OF or the EF, with one version of each (and the OF translation into the relevant vernacular language) but not the freedom to choose whatever missal or translation.

How we pray is how we believe. To say that we should be able to have different versions of the OF Mass is to say that we should be able to adapt the form of the Mass to suit the nuances of what we believe. Once we start to do that, we start to weaken the communion with each other, we start to becone less catholic.

We also then end up accepting that it is OK for Catholics in different areas to believe different things. That road leads towards the position the Anglican communion find themselves in, with different parts of their communion taking opposing stances on doctrinal matters. Is that then actually a communion or is it just an alliance of different communities?

So, no, I think this would be a very bad idea and I think it could put us on the road to the weakening of the communion that bonds us as the one true Church. I think it could put us on the road to autonomous regional Churches, which would damage our catholicity and could in turn lead to schism.
 
Last edited:
‘‘How we pray is how we believe’’ - exactly, and we must believe Catholic doctrine. But surely that has been judged to be authentically transmitted by any edition of the Missale Romanum, and any officially approved translation? Otherwise they wouldn’t have been approved/promulgated.

So we would in fact be praying the same beliefs - just expressing the prayer differently.
We also then end up accepting that it is OK for Catholics in different areas to believe different things. That road leads towards the position the Anglican communion find themselves in, with different parts of their communion taking opposing stances on doctrinal matters. Is that then actually a communion or is it just an alliance of different communities?
Click to expand...
I agree that this would be bad, but we have the Catechism and are united under it. I don’t see how using different editions of our approved liturgical books would lead to this - unless we really believe that some editions or translations were not only imperfect but dangerously errant in the theology they conveyed? Outside of extreme circles we obviously don’t believe that.
 
Last edited:
There is already enough liturgical and cultural differences between different parishes, different areas, different states, different countries. Even when I am out of town, the way the OF Mass is celebrated might vary in some areas, but the main parts of the Mass are the same, and I have an idea what is going on, what I am supposed to do, what the Priest is doing etc. If we were to allow every Parish to decide what Rite they want to celebrate, many Catholics might be utterly lost when attending a different Church.
 
Last edited:
Samuel_Mary said:
But in terms of being able to expect a uniform experience in all aspects, it’s never going to happen in a Church which spans 230 countries, many different cultures even with that, many different rites, sui iuris Churches, all age groups, and so forth.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
(8910)
 
That kind of diversity is found in the protestant congregation. Every congregation has its own way to celebrate. All 35,000 of them.
 
This.

The in parish squabbles about the font size and layout of the Missalettes is bad enough!
 
I respectfully disagree with your assertion of a “flaw” in the EF regarding cultural difficulty. The EF existed in the Americas since around the 1500’s. It also existed since the 1500’s and 1600’s in Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, and other places throughout the world—where the native languages were not derivatives of Latin, German or any other European languages. That’s a history of 400-500 years long until Vatican 2–after which the OF was promulgated. People in these countries then were less educated in terms of formal education then they are now. Yet, they managed to learn the EF and followed it. In fact, the EF was the only Mass they had ever known until the arrival of the OF. The Catholic Church survived and flourished in these countries despite facing further severed persecutions.

It seems to me it is a matter of will and belief. The beauty and richness of the EF are there for those who are willing to make the efforts to reach for them. I am in obedient to all Rites and Forms that are approved by the Church.
 
Last edited:
Samuel_Mary said:
What do you think ? Good idea or terrible idea?
Click to expand...
I think if it were a good idea, the pope and bishops would have done it that way.

I can’t see how it would do anything but cause more confusion and bickering. Yes, there is room for diversity in certain things. If you go to a Byzantine Catholic Church, you aren’t going to be surprised that the Mass looks different. Even if you go to a parish that advertises using the 1962 Latin Missal, you know you’re going to be getting something different from the norm (it is, after all, going to be in Latin, not English).

But two (or more) competing English translations of the missal? Totally confusing. If you’re in a new parish. from the very start of Mass when the priest says “The Lord be with you”, you’re not going to be sure what to say in response.

Maybe there would be ways to make it work, but I don’t think the headaches would make it worth it. Besides, that ship has sailed. The time to do it would have been back in 2011.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top