Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Two Petitions about the New Translation of the Roman Missal

Here is something for you... Are you for or against the new English translation of the Roman Missal?

Two petitions are online to give you an opportunity to express your opinion.

There is a website petition that seeks a review of the new translation. It is called:

"What If We Just Said Wait"

In response to this petition, a new website was set up this morning for those who believe the translation should be enacted as soon as possible.

"We've Waited Long Enough"

You can't say I am not giving equal time to both sides of this question!


Richard Coppinger said...

I'm saddened to see the name of diocesan priests & pastors of souls on a petition that seems to seek to delay bringing the fullness of the Roman Missal to English speaking people.

I wonder how the diocese responded to pastors in 1970 or 1975 who publicly sought to delay the implementation of those respective translations in parishes? How many priests sought to keep the formula of the consecration of the chalice to "for all men" when we were directed to move to "for all"?

Anonymous said...

thank you! it is all! not many! the vatican "officials" who are pushing this new mass at us do not know what they're talking about! WE are church! not them! this is a theological shift. at this point, our only hope is in the fact that this new missal is only a suggestion. even my parish priest said that he does not intend to implement this. i just feel sorry for those of you who aren't as blessed. everyone needs to resist this by attending only the parishes that choose not to use this new missal when it comes out.

Stu said...

Anonymous said... everyone needs to resist this by attending only the parishes that choose not to use this new missal when it comes out.

Plenty of room for you at the local Episcopal church. Their pews are empty and ready for you.

Mark said...

The priest behind this anti new translation drive describes his vocation in these words (as reported in the linked National Catholic Reporter interview):

"The church I have served as a priest for nearly 45 years, the church of the Second Vatican Council, is one that values dialogue and honors the fact that the Spirit speaks through all the people, not just the hierarchy."

That statement pretty much encapsulates the waning notion of what the Church is. As more young Catholics become better informed and discover their true patrimony, the idea that we're a Church of one Council becomes strange and unbalanced.

Also, the claim that "Spirit speaks through all the people, not just the hierarchy", by "people" usually means the activists on the liturgical councils and their sympathizers. Those, who in such parishes ask for traditional observances, like regular confession, rosary, or adoration, are usually viewed as unrepentant reactionaries. If they persist in their requests, dialogue is not offered, but the door is shown to them.

Veritas said...

I'm not particularly enthused by what I've read about the new missal, and I think a decent number of Catholics will find it dense and awkward.

That having been said, No. 1 Anonymous above needs to understand that individual pastors do not have the authority to disregard the rubrics set forth in the Missal. We're Catholic, remember? We believe in that quaint notion of authority? Even if I don't like the new Missal, I certainly hope that the Bishops of Richmond always vigorously enforce it, and sanction those priests who fail to do so.

Stu said...

If only the Universal (Catholic) Church had some sort of "Universal" language that never changed and could be used in worship thus better ensuring that Mass was the same everywhere for all people. Kind of like Hebrew was/is the language of worship for the Jews. Hmmm Pity there is nothing like that which would make this debate moot. If only.

Katie Beaumont said...

I don't see how the Richmond Diocese is capable of implementing a new Missal Romanum in a diocese that finds current liturgical intructions and directives problematic. It is the "tradition" of this diocese to deviate from tradition. There are no two priests in this diocese that use the provided "script" of the Roman Missal without chaning the words. How are these priests going to tell all of us to use the words of the new Roman Missal when they themselves do not use the Church's words when celebrating Mass. By the way, I just got back from being out of the country and noticed that the diocesan liturgical office still has not answered our questions about the widespread custom of unseen-tabernacles! For the love of God, talk to us!

William Exmew said...

There may be some priests from Richmond who signed this "No implementation" petition.

What about their parishioners?

Veritas said...

Apparently there are some Richmond priests who have signed, at least according to the anti-new Missal web site. (Look through the list of signatures.)

I don't mind their objecting at this time, but again any defiance of Church authorities and refusal to implement the changes when the time comes to implement them should be dealt with swiftly and severely.

Philip Evans said...

I counted eight priests identifying with our diocese who signed the petition seeking to delay the implementation of the approved translation, one seems to have posted twice, and a deacon. There also are a couple religious from our diocese on the list.

Anonymous said...

I saw the following names listed as priests who have signed the petition protesting the USCCB's approval of the new Roman Missal:

Msgr. Robert M. Perkins
John J. Dorgan
Daniel N Klem
Fr. Richard Mooney
Cosmas Rubencamp?
Thomas G. Miller
James E. Dorson
Rev. Mr. Fred Scarletto
William Pitt...surprise! surprise!
Robert E. French

The only priest on this list that I know is Fr. Pitt and the only thing I know about him is that he is VERY fond of Bishop Sullivan and does NOT admire the current bishop (to put it diplomatically). I recognized A LOT of lay people in charge of A LOT of Richmond Diocesan parishes. I wonder if Bishop DiLorenzo is intimidated by all of the Richmond diocesan priests and lay people who hold key positions in parishes signing a petition that does not support the actions of the Holy See and the USCCB? How are the people of this diocese going to get on board with the universal Church if some of our parish and diocesan leaders are not on board with the Catholic Church? Does our Bishop care? Or will he be calling some people into his office? What's Ms. CCD's position on all this?

standing maryanna said...

A standing maryanna request:

Please be careful about how you write about individual priests. There is nothing wrong with signing this petition. The translation has not yet been implemented.

If comments are made slamming individual priests, religious or lay folks, I will delete them.

Cosmos Rubencamp is not a priest. As far as I know, he is a Xavarian Brother.

Mark said...

Once the new translation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass becomes approved by the USCCB, it will be very difficult for dissenting parishes to refuse to implement it. If they disobey and continue with the previous version of this Mass, then this diocese will have two de facto Ordinary Forms of the Mass, but only one licit.

If such a situation transpires, then this diocese will have sunk to a state of liturgical anarchy, where each parish makes its own liturgical decisions. I don't see our Bishop allowing things to devolve to this level - one would expect him to assert the authority of his office sooner or later, with or without Vatican's local involvement.

If the dissenting parishes do decide to fight this after the approval by the USCCB, then I think most likely they will use delaying tactics. They may ask for implementation extensions, make emotionally exaggerated claims of all sorts, complain that their leaders are too overburdened to learn this new translation, etc, etc. We've seen all this many times before. Personally, I don't think they will go that far against the Bishop and the Vatican.

Anonymous said...

Be careful. I don't think Bishop DiLorenzo is too keen on this new missal either. He doesn't seem like the type that likes all that hoity-toity liturgical-speak. Let's wait and see if he really tries to force all the parishes who are not planning to use this missal to buy into a missal that they disagree with. Remember, this diocese is in the same liturgical state that it was in under Bishop Sullivan. The same people who were in charge at the parish level under Sullivan are still in charge under DiLorenzo. People! Stop worrying! There will be plenty of parishes in this diocese that will NOT implement the new missal.

Stu said...

Any Bishop who does not enforce these changes should not be surprised when his priests are disobedient to him. That's simply "Leadership 101."

Mother Church has spoken. Time to get onboard.

Mark said...

The new translation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, once approved, will be mandatory for all parishes in its linguistic jurisdiction. Its implementation will not be optional, since that alternative would lead to liturgical chaos.

I seriously doubt that after the approval of this translation any Bishop would oppose its implementation. To continue to do so would be an act of defiance leading to schism and eventual excommunication - I can't imagine any Bishop leading their flock in that direction. Please, let's not indulge in innuendo about our Bishop.

Katie Beaumont said...

There is one way that this diocese could circumvent the new Roman Missal - just keep singing the current liturgical music that is sung in a typical diocesan parish. We are exempt from the words of the Roman Missal when we sing because the law does not apply to liturgical music.

Thomas Howard said...

It would be helpful to look at the names of those who signed the seemingly anti-Roman petition. Some of our diocesan priests/religious and lay ministers (sic) together with women who simulate the sacraments as "ordained" members of the women priests sect.

standing maryanna said...

A standing maryanna request:

Remember, please keep this from being a witch hunt... there is NOTHING wrong with signing a petition to slow the process to review the new translation.

Some people's attitudes is why there are many anonymous signers of the petition. Can't say I blame them either.

Ralph Sherwin said...

With all due respect to Standing Mariana - there are significant problems with active pastors signing on to this petition.

1. The petition explicitly expresses disapproval of the reigning Pontiff's implementation of the 2nd Vatican Council even to the point of suggesting in it's preface that there is a pointed "dismantling" of the 2nd Vatican Council going on at the highest levels of the Church.

2. the petition expresses implicit disagreement with the US Bishops who have already approved the forthcoming new translation of the Roman Missal. In principle, their signature also represents public disagreement with our own bishop, who is a member of the same USCCB which approved the new translation.

3. the petition represents a certain dissent toward the 5th Roman document implementing the 2nd Vatican Council (2001) "Liturgiam authenticam" because its principles informed the new translation (see This also represents dissent toward the 2nd Vatican Council itself which clearly indicated that the Holy See has the authority to regulate the sacred liturgy and approve translations adopted by regional conferences of bishops.

4. The petition with signatures from active pastors in our diocese brings significant scandal to parishioners because they depend on those same pastors for the implementation of the new translation in their parishes.

5. The petition's expressed aim to delay the implementation of the new missal for another year articulates a certain lack of justice because it would frustrate the desire of our reigning pontiff to bring the fullness of the Roman Missal to our people and the people's ability to receive it.

6. The anti-Roman spirit of the petition & the presence of active diocesan pastors' signature on it furthers the impression that all is not well with our diocese.

Stu said...

Ralph is correct. The Church is not a democracy. If there are priest who are upset at the Church's direction in this, then they need to express their opinions discreetly through their Bishop and so forth.

Katie Beaumont said...

Perhaps some of us are getting a little over-alarmed by the Richmond Diocesan clergy who are signing the "anti-new Roman Missal" petition. When I looked up the names of the clergy listed, I noticed that almost ALL of them are retired except for the pastor of Sacred Heart in Norfolk, Virginia. I'm not surprised though, the liturgy at Sacred Heart (just like the rest of this diocese) is not a rubrics-friendly liturgy.

Nick Heath said...

I know of at least one other signer who is a sitting pastor right now.

Anonymous said...

I'm one of those people that signed the petition to request a delay of the new English translation mostly because I believe Catholics should be transformed by the culture and that we should be indistinguishable from our non-Catholic neighbors. How can we witness to the world when we look irrelevant and out-dated? I remember the days of pray, pay and obey and I refuse to go back to those days. It is not a sin to sign a petition and I have been telling all my friends across the diocese to sign it. I refuse to go to a Mass that doesn't talk the way I do.

Stu said...

Anonymous said... I refuse to go to a Mass that doesn't talk the way I do.

Admittedly, I don't know if the above post was submitted as parody, but I will speak to it as if it is true.

Essentially, the sentiment above equates to "I will receive Jesus, but only on MY terms."

I've been privileged to attend Mass all over the world and even when I don't understand the language being spoken, I know that I am receiving Christ in the Eucharist. Again, a return to Latin would solve this issue worldwide and truly unify us as a Church.

Anonymous said...

the new translation makes me feel nothing but utter disgust. this translation turns my love for liturgy into hatred of liturgy.
i will not pray the way an all-male hierarchy wants me to pray. i will celebrate the eucharistic meal the way communal church celebrates. i hope stu is joking when he mocks other celebrating catholics for feeling the same way i do. i've been in the liturgy business for a long time and i know what i'm talking about. the hierarchy is trying to drag us back to the days of pray, pay and obey.

Stu said...

Not really mockery but rather recognizing that either your sentiments are simply satire or worse vestiges of a dying sentiment (thankfully!) in our Church.

You can scream "Non serviam" all you want but the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, shall always right herself and lead us to the Truth. And thanks be to God for that.

Orthodoxy and holiness will always attract.

Anonymous said...

stu, you sound like one of those negative anti-community "catholics" who complains that it's distracting when devout catholics like myself mimic the priests gestures during liturgy and you probably are against holding hands with the assembly during our community celebration. you're the one who is wrong, not me. i'm a vatican 2 catholic. i don't accept the dark ages version of catholicism. does inquisition ring a bell???

Stu said...


Unless you start posting with a real name and parish, I refuse to take your posts as anything more than someone using satire in order to get me to comment. Such sentiments are just too over the top.

Veritas said...

Mark, you're kidding, right? Liturgical anarchy? Ha! Welcome to Richmond, my friend!

Veritas said...

Anonymous wrote: "I believe Catholics should be transformed by the culture and that we should be indistinguishable from our non-Catholic neighbors."

Please, please tell me that this was written tongue in cheek. God help us.

Stu said...

Indeed, Veritas.

Anon's comments just seem too over the top to be true. I'm confident there are people that believe such silly things, but I am skeptical that this is one is for real. That's why I challenge them to post their parish and adopt a handle.

Anonymous said...

dear stu, maryanna and veritas (probably the same person bloggin under different names),

you try to dismiss my comments as over the top because you don't agree with me. i will not reveal my parish out of love for my pastor who is sympathetic to many of my causes. as far as this new trashy translation is concerned, my pastor and i have decided that we will not implement it in our parish because there was no discussion, no dialogue, just imposition from above!
the voice of teh people is the voice of god! no matter where i go to mass, i will always continue to say, "and also with you," as loudly and clearly as i can. i will also say "WE believe". jesus spoke to the "public" in their own language. how ironic that many times, even when hearing parables in their own toungue, they (including his Disciples) failed to understand jesus' messages. why complicate things? this is why we have developed the custom of changing words to simplify them so the people can understand. trust me. i know what i'm talking about. i've been in this business for more decades than most of you have even been alive. i don't need any lectures from any youngsters longing for the days of my youth. i lived those days long enough and refuse to go back to the church of my youth. WE celebrate! WE believe!

Stu said...

Anon..You are a fake.

Anonymous said...

yeah. you're right. i'm a fake. i'm really bigfoot. hehehehehehe

Katie Beaumont said...

This is an interesting Catholic news piece recently in Catholic News:

It confirms what many of us have suspected about the Pope's plan for liturgy from a real insider who knows first-hand what the Pope is planning. It would be an interesting post.

Anonymous said...

Subterfuge, disobedience...All unbelievable from Catholics..Screaming, I don't like it I will not go..Part of being Catholic is the Magesterium of the Church and the Holy Father. Rome is the center, not Richmond. Many of you should have the utmost shame and disgrace. For all who claim that this is a return to a former time, what time? The times of glory, respect and a full Church, not just in yours, but across the world. Give me a break, I bet all who scream about Vatican II and the liberation to use the vernacular don't know the Ordinary in Latin or any other part for that matter. And the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy from the same said council demanded its' retention. Not to implement the new Missal is flagrant disobedience that will get you and your people nowhere. I feel sorry for the souls who will be led into such a practice of disobedience. If you have no use for Rome, the Holy Father, and what they say is best, you should formally leave. You have left anyways. Don't drag the innocent or vocally timid down with you.

Anonymous said...

French, Italian, Spanish, Portugeese, German etc speakers all have a literal transaltion of the Roman Missal. Us English folk are the odds ones out.

Vat II (Sacrosanctum Concilum) said not even the Priest can change the text yet the current English version deletes a chunk of the Gloria, deletes at least a hundred antiphons and deletes or dilutes Estalolgical, Christological, Patristic and Scriptural reference after reference.

When Mass began to be prayed in Latin, it wasn't street Latin but a higher form suitable for the re-presentation of Christ's immolation on Calvary and the personification of the Heavenly liturgy.

The Glory to God, Holy Holy Holy, Lamb of God from the re-transalation cannot be changed even if they are sung! Old Mass settings will not be allowed.

As for hymns, the GIRM notes the texts (if the antiphons are ignored which is the first musical option) must be approved by the Bishops.

Bring on the re-translation, the readable, pronouncable, accurate, beautiful translation.

I am an English speaking Catholic, I am not a moron, I have a brain which I like to use - I'm glad the Liturgy will no longer be dumbed down.

We praise You, we bless You, we adore You, we glorify You. AMEN!