A year since the introduction of the new English language translation
of the Roman Missal, the experience of faithful who enter a church on
either side of the Atlantic, is practically identical: in almost every
church, the introduction has been “domesticated”. Rarely does the celebrant follow the new text word for word, but often adapts it to make it more comprehensible to the audience.
The famous “for many” which has not been changed to “for all” is a classic example: some appear to “forget” the changes, while others say “for many and many.”
Faithful are left feeling extremely awkward, tied to their leaflets and often left with a bundle of words in their mouths.
For example, when it comes to pronouncing the creed, pounding one’s chest is just not part of the established mindset. This does not mean that all liturgical celebrations miss out the introduced changes and that all congregations have trouble with words such as “consubstantial”.
Aware of the situation, The Tablet launched a survey and published the result in its latest issue, along with some comments by a number of prominent figures.
A total of almost 6 thousand people were interviewed across the United Kingdom (37%), Ireland (7%) and the United States (43%), in an online survey carried out between 5 December 2012 and 9 January 2013.
The first significant piece of data, is that Europeans are more critical of the new translation than Americans and the vast majority of the clergy in all countries were unhappy with (over 70%) it, compared to the laity.
All lay people who took part in the survey defined themselves “practicing Catholics” and attend mass on a weekly basis. Those who called themselves “traditionalists” expressed a clear preference for the new translated version.
The survey’s respondents were almost evenly split over the new translation: 47% said they appreciated the new Missal, 51% did not. 48% said they considered the new translation more prayerful and reverent than the old against 49% who did not.
In terms of the new words introduced: 63% like the end greeting, 62% likes the expressions 'I believe', in the Creed and 'And with your spirit' 55% agrees with “for many”, while “consubstantial” is only approved by 50%. 70% said they have noticed faithful having difficulties in following mass celebrations and more than half said the same about the celebrant as well.
People’s real opinions came out into the open when asked directly “which mass do you prefer?”: 24% like the new mass, 51% prefer the old version, 6% the Latin Ordinary form and 19% the Latin Extraordinary form (10 per cent of UK and Ireland responses, 21 per cent of US responses). The reasons why 63% of Europeans do not like the new translation include: the style is too formal and prayers are “obsequious”, in other words, the language was distracting and needs revising.
Similarly, 70% of priests and clerics dislike the new text (only 22% approves it); in fact 2/3 believe the new version to be less suitable for the celebration of mass. There was strong opposition to 'consubstantial' (67%), 'for many' (63%) and 'chalice' (61%), as they could not see the use of them. Only 41% of priests reported always striking their breasts when asking for forgiveness (16% said they did so sometimes). In sum, 81% said they would gladly go back to using the previous translation, while 61% felt the text “urgently needed to be revised.”
One of the figures who commented on the results of the survey was Benedictine priest Fr. Anthony Ruff (who resigned from the liturgical Commission in protest), suggested a more “scientific” survey needed to be carried out so as to provide the Church hierarchy with more concrete information (the CARA survey in the US produced more positive data).
Michael G. Ryan, parish priest of St. James’ cathedral in Seattle said he was happy with the initiative, but he feared “there was a concerted effort among them to urge like-minded people to complete the survey,” he also therefore thought the survey could have benefited from a more scientific approach. He was was particularly surprised at the contrast between clergy and lay responses.
On the contrary, Mgr Andrew Wadsworth, executive director, International Commission on English in the Liturgy, seems to think the reception of the text has been far more positive than expected and those against do not make up such a crushing majority. According to him, priests would get used to the new text with further training.
“The unity of the Roman Rite is essentially textual - we meditate on the same Scriptures and we use the same orations when we celebrate the liturgy” and apparently this was lacking in the previous translation which was too free. The Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, was of the same mind.
Meanwhile, the Bishop of Cardiff, George Stark’s reaction was somewhere in the middle; he focused on the “richness of the life of the Church at large.”
Bernadette Farrell, a British composer of liturgical music, on the other hand, did not seem too pleased in her comment: I find it hard to justify the setting aside of decades of patient work...” It begs the question of “'Who benefits?'”.
Mrs. Farrell asked herself whether a more literal translation, closer to the Latin, would really benefit participation of faithful in masses celebrated in the English language.