Tuesday, 2 February 2010

What if we just said wait ?

The case for a grassroots review of the new Roman Missal ?

The “What If We Just Said Wait?” initiative imploring our bishops to slow down the implementation of the new Roman Missal recently reached another milestone: 13,000 signatures and counting!

7,200 lay people
2,265 lay ministers
3,882 priests, deacons and religious
61 countries

Please help us reach another milestone, 20,000 signatures, by forwarding making it known to friends and colleagues and helping to spread the word about this initiative. Many people have asked what they can do to help. Here are some possibilities:

Discuss the issue with Catholic friends and colleagues (most are still totally unaware that new translations are on the way!)
Share your concerns with your pastor and bishop,
If you serve on a diocesan or parish council, consider raising the issue of the new translation for discussion there,
Encourage those who are still studying the issue to explore the extensive web resources available at http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/

Above all, pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance. As one of our signers commented, “Prayer is the greatest petition!"

Thank you for your continued support. May the coming holy season of Lent be a time of grace and renewal for our Church.


berenike said...

want the rest of the Gloria ... I want the rest of the Gloria ... and the missing bits of the first Eucharistic prayer ...

Contemplative Catholic said...

you don't half bring a smile to my face Berenike !

berenike said...

(that anon wisnae me!)

Athanasius said...

I hate to be contrary on your blog, but what exactly are your objections to the new translation? (it's not a new missal btw, just a more faithful translation of the current one). Are you not in favour with a translation that more accurately reflects the intentions of the council Fathers and the theology of the Church?

I'm curious, not looking for a fight!

Contemplative Catholic said...

Hi Athanasius,
My objections are it's perhaps too literal and forthright. The present translation can still allow a solemn celebration of the Mass. I guess it's a similar objection some traditionalists had to the latin of the IVth Eucharistic prayer and the theology in it. It was considered a bit angular and unchurchy. When the translation of the 1969 missal was published there was a need for revision. There has been widespread criticism of this translation in that it can be a little 'removed' from the tenor of the way people speak English. Yes, you could object to the term archaic, but is archaic speak (for want of a better phrase) the best way to solemnise the liturgy and is a solemnisation of the liturgy what is needed - if it is it can still be solemnised with he translation we have. I guess I also twitch against such a tight level of imposed uniformity. Delighted to receive your question Athanasius, which I probably haven't done justice to. As an aside, didn't St Athanasius object to many of the Bishops and authorities of his day over the Arian controversy ? I find it odd that some see opposition to issues like the new translation as 'dissent' and as we all know Pope Benedict has asked the Bishops of E&W to recognise Dissent for what it is . . . . not that I'm suggesting you were thinking that. If St Athanasius had not objected to the contemporary prevailing wind, where would we have been today? Thank you so much for taking the trouble to read my Blog. Nick
p.s. will the prayer of the church be next ??? Perhaps we could resolve it by retaining both the 'old' translation of the Paul VI Missal and the new translation. We could have the 'Ordinary' form and the 'very ordinary' form as well as the 'extraordinary form' of the Mass -sorry i'm being silly now