Bishops press release on the Translation of Liturgical Texts
In a press release (06 December 2017) the Irish bishops welcomed the letter of Pope Francis, ‘The Great Principle” (03 September 2017), which gave responsibility and authority to local conferences of bishops over the translation of liturgical texts.
Press Release – Feast of Saint Nicholas, bishop, Wednesday 6 December 2017
Translation of Liturgical Texts
Bishops welcomed the motu proprio of Pope Francis, Magnum Principium, concerning the translation of liturgical texts. While moving towards implementation of the provisions of Magnum Principium, the bishops will give time to reflection and discussion on the full implications of the motu proprio. The Bishops’ Conference will continue to work collaboratively with other national Bishops’ Conferences, including through the International Commission for English in the Liturgy, in realising the principles of Magnum Principium, while giving full regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Bishops’ Conference as affirmed by the Holy Father Pope Francis.
Isn`t this wonderful news! Such possibilities now open!
This seems to be slightly at odds with the headline article in the recent ‘Irish Catholic’ (30/11/2017) entitled “Ireland will not re-visit Mass changes despite Pope’s green light”
It quotes Msgr Joseph McGuinness who apparently chairs the Irish Church’s Council for Liturgy saying, “there is no plan at present for the Irish Episcopal Conference either to authorise its own translation, or to revisit the translation produced by ICEL (the International Commission for English in the Liturgy) in 1998”. It further quotes Bishop of Achonry Dr Brendan Kelly who apparently also sits on the same Council, as saying that the cost and effort of producing the current version of the Roman Missal made a revision at this time prohibitive.
Of course the Bishops’ Conference statement doesn’t rule out a change happening sometime. Lets hope that when they do get around to considering the matter they might consider the possibility that, the real cost could be the generations of people who opt out and are denied the joy of the gospel, because they have no idea what ‘in God’s name’ we are talking about at Mass on Sundays.
It’s a pity that the Bishops did not take this approach before foisting the new translations on us. If they had given “time to reflection and discussion” prior to its introduction, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now. I can’t help but suspect that this is merely a cynical holding exercise on behalf of the bishops and that have no intention of revising let alone abandoning the new translation!
There is common sense coming from some bishops and surely they will all, eventually, come around to this way of thinking. Surely ……
Yippee! Now whenever I go to Mass around the world I can rely on having a different version of the Mass in (potentially) every diocese. Praise the God of diversity and confusion.
13th December, 2017
Surely the priority of the revision of the present Roman Missal is to
give Pobal De an understandable and readable translation. Should the cost and effort interfere with this?
the cost and effort are merely minor considerations.
Forgive an English visitor to your discussion for intervening. You may not be aware but following their recent meeting the English and Welsh Bishops said that they had been informed by the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome that the current (mis)translation of the Mass was not open to re-examination and that Magnum Principium only applies to new material. I suspect that this is just another attempt by Cardinal Sarah to wrest back some control after his put down by the Pope and that if the Pope was aware of it he would again state that the Congregation was wrong. However, such an interpretation probably suits the English Bishops just as much as those in Ireland as it saves money!
Martin Clitheroe@7 Is it possible that the English bishops hope people won`t see this for what it is – a blatant refusal to obey the pope on this vital matter? How can they hope to claim obedience from priests or people, after this showing?
Does anyone know if Cardinal Sarah has yet done what the pope in his letter to him asked him to do – have a correction of the cardinal`s misleading explanation published in all the places it had been sent to?