Why the interminable wait?

[Manfred]

After Vatican II, it took almost no time for the bishops of English-speaking nations to give us that infamous “striped, spotted, and mottled” ICEL translation for the Mass. In those days, the bishops’ conferences were just coming into being, there was no e-mail, internet, no personal computers with word processing applications. Yet by 1969 the Roman Rite Mass in English was up-and-running.

Today, we keep hearing about a new and improved ICEL translation that will likely knock the socks off of the present one. (Hmm, maybe THAT’s the real problem here. ) The bishops’ conferences are now well-established, we have e-mail, the internet, computers with a variety of word processing applications for super-fast editing and revising of proposed translations.

So, can anyone tell me WHY it’s taking so long to get this new translation completed, approved, and in place?

 

[RobbyS]

After Vatican II, it took almost no time for the bishops of English-speaking nations to give us that infamous “striped, spotted, and mottled” ICEL translation for the Mass. In those days, the bishops’ conferences were just coming into being, there was no e-mail, internet, no personal computers with word processing applications. Yet by 1969 the Roman Rite Mass in English was up-and-running.

Today, we keep hearing about a new and improved ICEL translation that will likely knock the socks off of the present one. (Hmm, maybe THAT’s the real problem here. ) The bishops’ conferences are now well-established, we have e-mail, the internet, computers with a variety of word processing applications for super-fast editing and revising of proposed translations.

So, can anyone tell me WHY it’s taking so long to get this new translation completed, approved, and in place?

Pretty obvious. Many of these bishops and most of their crews grew up with the present ICRL, and they don’t want to change it. It is always one thing to force something down the throat of the laity, with or without consultation, but the powers-that-be hate it when it is done to them. And they will resist as long as they can, hoping that, maybe the pope will die.

 

[Gertabelle]

So, can anyone tell me WHY it’s taking so long to get this new translation completed, approved, and in place?

The nuns at the Abbey used to say that Rome was called the “eternal” city because it took forever for anything to move through there.

I agree it’s been a long-time coming, but perhaps that’s because they want to get it right. That would be a good thing

Gertie

 

[passus]

Why does it take stuff so long to get through the legal system? There’s no theological answer to this question. It’s just how it works.

 

[FrDavid96]

After Vatican II, it took almost no time for the bishops of English-speaking nations to give us that infamous “striped, spotted, and mottled” ICEL translation for the Mass. In those days, the bishops’ conferences were just coming into being, there was no e-mail, internet, no personal computers with word processing applications. Yet by 1969 the Roman Rite Mass in English was up-and-running.

Today, we keep hearing about a new and improved ICEL translation that will likely knock the socks off of the present one. (Hmm, maybe THAT’s the real problem here. ) The bishops’ conferences are now well-established, we have e-mail, the internet, computers with a variety of word processing applications for super-fast editing and revising of proposed translations.

So, can anyone tell me WHY it’s taking so long to get this new translation completed, approved, and in place?

Manfred,

A few points

The very problem with the ICEL translation was that it was rushed. Part of the reason why we have this is because Rome was very busy approving translations in so many different languages all at the same time. Too much trust was placed in the ICEL interpreters (not translators). A lesson learned the hard way. Let’s take some comfort in the fact that people have learned from the mistakes of the past and aren’t willing to repeat them.

The English speaking bishops conferences only have their business meeting once a year for a few days, AND all the conferences in the English speaking world have to agree on a final translation. That’s no easy task.

We wouldn’t want them rushing things like they did last time, so perhaps it’s better that we do have to wait.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

1. You’d better believe part of the delay is that many bishops want us to use the **** we’ve got for as long as possible.
2. There’s also an element of Roman sluggishness, especially with the hope that this time we’ll get things right.
3. The existence of full-grown bishops’ conferences is not part of the solution but part of the problem. Every bishop gets a copy of the text, and everyone can submit amendments, which must then be considered, revoted, etc., etc. It’s absolutely ridiculous to give 200 people the opportunity to fight it out over every single word of the translation, which then causes the further complication that the ideal of a single English translation is compromised and everyone stands around staring at each other waiting to see what will actually be implemented.

 

[jc-servant]

There are things happening, but most parishioners are not aware of the action so it seems like nothing is moving forward. I know a Catholic composer who was asked to work on possible arrangements for the changes in mass parts due to the new language. We knew the changes were coming well over a year before I saw anything about it in media or on this board. I 2nd the thought that it is better to wait a little longer and have it be correct this time around.

 

[Manfred]

1. You’d better believe part of the delay is that many bishops want us to use the **** we’ve got for as long as possible.
2. There’s also an element of Roman sluggishness, especially with the hope that this time we’ll get things right.
3. The existence of full-grown bishops’ conferences is not part of the solution but part of the problem. Every bishop gets a copy of the text, and everyone can submit amendments, which must then be considered, revoted, etc., etc. It’s absolutely ridiculous to give 200 people the opportunity to fight it out over every single word of the translation, which then causes the further complication that the ideal of a single English translation is compromised and everyone stands around staring at each other waiting to see what will actually be implemented.

Andreas,

Your observation in item (3) is, in my view, why we have this interminable wait.

Hmmm, come to think of it, your other observations in (2) and (1) are also pretty accurate.

In this, thou hast answered rightly.

 

[LilyM]

Manfred,

A few points

The very problem with the ICEL translation was that it was rushed. Part of the reason why we have this is because Rome was very busy approving translations in so many different languages all at the same time. Too much trust was placed in the ICEL interpreters (not translators). A lesson learned the hard way. Let’s take some comfort in the fact that people have learned from the mistakes of the past and aren’t willing to repeat them.

The English speaking bishops conferences only have their business meeting once a year for a few days, AND all the conferences in the English speaking world have to agree on a final translation. That’s no easy task.

We wouldn’t want them rushing things like they did last time, so perhaps it’s better that we do have to wait.

The ICEL wasn’t quite as ‘up-and-running’ as quickly as you seem to think. I know within my own lifetime it’s gone through a couple of revisions.

Anyone remember ‘my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault’? Or ‘only say the word and my soul shall be healed’? I do - and that was from the mid-to-late 70s.

And as has been stated, given that the problems with the original translation were largely caused by the haste with which it came out, I wouldn’t be in a hurry to rush through a revision of the revision if I were you.

 

[benedictgal]

Hey, Manfred!

I own a 1969 version of the Roman Missal that bears the imprimatur of Cardinal O’Connor. This was, I believe, ICEL’s first stab at the translation (I could be wrong since it’s at my office–I’ll check tomorrow). The wording was not as bad as it is in the current form. In fact, the prayers were much more beautiful.

While I was in St. Louis, I got to attend the Saturday session of the Gateway Liturgical Conference. After hearing Archbishop Ranjith, I attended the section on ICEL. Evidently, ICEL used a program, for lack of a better word, based on a French document that called for paraphrasing. That is why a lot of what is in the current translation does not jibe with what is in the Latin.

Cardinal Medina Esteves, one of the Prefects Emeritus for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, caught ICEL’s erros when he was reviewing (and wound up chucking) the commission’s revised Rite of Ordination.
This prompted him to start reviewing ICEL’s work with a fine-toothed comb. That is when he discovered ICEL’s other problems. This prompted the promulgation of the document Liturgiam Authenticam, which led to the revision of the English-version of the Roman Missal.

The target date that I heard was 2010-11. The roadblocks come more from the USCCB than they do from the other conferences. I am still optimistic that we should have something in our hands before the Mayan prophecies come true in 2012. No, I don’t believe in that stuff, but, of course, if the Lord should come by then, we won’t have to fool with it because we are going to be living the Heavenly Liturgy.

 

[Manfred]

Hey, Manfred!

I own a 1969 version of the Roman Missal that bears the imprimatur of Cardinal O’Connor. This was, I believe, ICEL’s first stab at the translation (I could be wrong since it’s at my office–I’ll check tomorrow). The wording was not as bad as it is in the current form. In fact, the prayers were much more beautiful.

I don’t doubt the difference in wording, b’gal, but I do suspect the date may not be as late as 1969, since that’s about the time the ICEL translation that we’ve all come to know and love (hah!) was promulgated.

While I was in St. Louis, I got to attend the Saturday session of the Gateway Liturgical Conference. After hearing Archbishop Ranjith, I attended the section on ICEL. Evidently, ICEL used a program, for lack of a better word, based on a French document that called for paraphrasing. That is why a lot of what is in the current translation does not jibe with what is in the Latin.

Cardinal Medina Esteves, one of the Prefects Emeritus for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, caught ICEL’s erros when he was reviewing (and wound up chucking) the commission’s revised Rite of Ordination.
This prompted him to start reviewing ICEL’s work with a fine-toothed comb. That is when he discovered ICEL’s other problems. This prompted the promulgation of the document Liturgiam Authenticam, which led to the revision of the English-version of the Roman Missal.

And it took Rome from 1969 till the issuance of Liturgiam Authenticam to realize this?

The target date that I heard was 2010-11. The roadblocks come more from the USCCB than they do from the other conferences. I am still optimistic that we should have something in our hands before the Mayan prophecies come true in 2012. No, I don’t believe in that stuff, but, of course, if the Lord should come by then, we won’t have to fool with it because we are going to be living the Heavenly Liturgy.

Well, yeah, given that each bishop has a chance to comment on a proposed translation whether he is knowledgeable enough in the matter or not. Many, I’m sure, hand it over to an “expert” on their staff, who usually have an agenda (think gender-inclusivity and political correctness) to push.

Sort of makes a case for the Mass in Latin, whether NO or TLM.

 

[Frosty]

While 40 years may seem to some like an interminable wait, in the grand scheme of things it isn’t all that long. I prefer to give the translators and the Bishop’s Conferences the benefit of the doubt and believe that they really do want to get it right his time. English can be a tricky language since a single word can have a different meaning in one English speaking country than it does in another. Besides. even after Pope St. Pius V promulgated Quo Primum in 1570, there had to be more revisions of the translation of the Missal {and that was from Latin to Latin].

Pope Clement VIII in 1604:

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/314

Pope Urban VIII in 1634. A full 64 years later!

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/403

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Andreas,

Your observation in item (3) is, in my view, why we have this interminable wait.

Hmmm, come to think of it, your other observations in (2) and (1) are also pretty accurate.

In this, thou hast answered rightly.

Thou art right cunning thyself, friend Manfred.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I happen to think that forcing the Anglophone Church to suffer this translation day in and day out while we drag our feet on a new one is downright uncharitable. But let’s remember that in one - albeit somewhat pathetic - sense this translation is actually moving along at a fast pace. ICEL took a quarter century to submit a lame translation of the 1975 *MR *(only to have it rejected), so roughly a decade for the 2002 MR is twice as fast. Simply getting a translation of this third edition of the Missal beats out the abortive second edition attempt which never came to fruition. And from what we’ve seen the translation we’re getting in half the time will be 100 times better.

 

[SentimentalGent]

I am still optimistic that we should have something in our hands before the Mayan prophecies come true in 2012.

Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks for the chuckle.

Actually, the Australians have already finished approving the entire Roman Missal. Maybe Cardinal Pell, as president of Vox Clara (if memory serves) can exert some pressure on the USCCB. From what I have read, the new Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Antonio Cardinal Canizares Llovera, is much more strict than his predecessor and may be along the same lines as Cardinal Arinze’s predecessor. If that is the case then some huge fires are going to lit under the collective feet of the USCCB.

I am optimistic. Besides, we have to have hope.