I cannot in good conscience say that the new translation adds any sort of continuity to the EF. The break is still there. The translation is simply that, a translation. The problems with the liturgy still exist.
I don't think that there can be any concrete comparison to the
EF, until the OF adapts it's rubrics to be more contiguous. Words are
simply words and while this translation is nice and all, it doesn't
change anything theologically with the Editio Typica. The Editio Typica
is what needs reform, not simply calling a new English Translation a
reform. We're missing the forest for one tree if we do that.
My contention is this:
1. Eliminate the vernacular as a normative language, it was never meant to be so.
2. Restore (read: reform) the rubrics to be contiguous with the EF.
Promulgate an Editio Quarta, which theologically speaks to the mystery
of the sacrifice as opposed to focusing on the Institution Narrative.
4. Restore (read: reform) the externals of the church proper (ie. ad orientem worship, communion rails).
Restore (read: reform) the proper distinctions between low and High
Mass with proper use of ceremonials, including Asperges as a separate
part and the return of the Confitieor as a mandatory prayer.
6. Eliminate the "bidding prayers" and return the traditional Offertory prayers.
This in my humble opinion would be a real start. Until then, I can't see any real reform taking place.
In this case, with regard to the translation, we're not talking about "the words that
matter." Those words that matter would be the Latin words. We are
talking about the translation of the words that matter. We've seen for
40 years that the vernacular words don't really matter. Case in
point..."for all." If the translated words mattered, the Mass would
have substantially been changed, and invalidated. But it wasn't,
because pro multis didn't change. Therefore, when I speak about a
translation, I mean precisely that, it is a translation. For 40 years
we've had a bad one. Now we have a better one. But, my contention is
that we don't need any translation. Latin is good. Not good enough.
Not one of several options, but in the Thomistic sense, Latin is good.
should simply do away with all translations and restore (read: return)
to the Latin as the normative language. The majority of the world not
Algonquin. The majority of the world is not Slovakian. The majority of
the world is from a country that is not faced with the issues that
preclude Latin. We need to follow the mandate of Vatican Council II on
My point remains....there will be no real return to
continuity until such time as the rubrics are reformed (read:replaced)
with a more continuous rendering.
In this particular case,
words don't matter...they are just a translation of what does. What
does matter, in this case, is the action. Lex orandi, lex credendi
works both ways.
The translation is nice, but it is one tree. One that should eventually be cut down, so the forest can grow.
What I'm saying is that regardless of the translation, the Mass is
valid. The issue with English words, just being words, is that validity
isn't the issue when dealing with translation. If it were, then "for
all" would have been dealt with much earlier.
My point is this.
The Novus Ordo is not ideal. It is a break with Tradition. It is
fabricated and while it is valid, because the words of consecration, in
Latin, are not and have not been altered; it leaves much to be desired.
If the TLM is to enrich the Novus Ordo, then it should do so, not in the
application of a translation, but in the rubrics. Since 1970, we've
seen the rubrics slowly stripped away. Why? It is my contention that
it has been done to make the Mass more palatable to the Protestant.
This was already done by abandoning our sacred language, in favor of the
language of the people. Which was and is a mistake, in my estimation
(I know that my estimation means nothing, I digress).
can be achieved in the manner I have been putting forth recently. I'm
not calling for the end of the Novus Ordo. I don't have to. The Novus Ordo
will fail on it's own over time. We must simply endure until the
Traditional Mass makes a full return to becoming "the ordinary form."
Again, validity isn't the only matter, but when the theology has been
utterly and completely stripped away from the Mass, save just enough to
remain valid, that is all we have to go on. Compared to the TLM,
the Novus Ordo teaches us very little, save for the idea that we are
Church and that the community is the celebrant and that the priest
merely presides, like a bishop in cope and mitre on the throne.
what point do we say enough? We have the right, because it was given
to us in Redemptionis Sacramentum to make abuses known. The biggest
abuse regarding the Novus Ordo isn't just that it is said in the
vernacular, or that the rubrics are stripped, or that the music is just
awful. No. The biggest abuse regarding the Novus Ordo is that
Catholics have had their patrimony taken away with regard to the
liturgical action and we must simply sit back and watch our heritage
float away, like the smoke that has crept into the Church.
is a monsterously huge issue. And it is one that if we are going to be
authentic to the Liturgical Movement, we have to stop coddling "Study
Group 10" and Bugnini and start engaging in what Dom Gueranger really
intended in the movement. If we keep supporting and keep promoting this
minimalist notion of validity is enough and licit actions will
certainly come if we just wait, we'll stay in this same holding pattern
of constant revision and more revision and more revision until there is
In 40 years the Novus Ordo is coming very close to
matching the number of revisions the TLM had in 500. That should be seen
as a problem. Catholics, in general, should take the wool and remove it from their
eyes...This isn't an issue about validity. The Novus Ordo is valid, but
being valid isn't enough.
What would happen if we took the
traditions away from the Jews? Or the Muslims? Or the Hindi? Or the
Protestants? What would happen? Look at what happened when we tried
this with the Uniate Churches....
What was unforseen by "Study
Group 10," Bugnini, and Pope Paul VI is that their idea would fail and
that Catholics would see that there is no continuity between the Novus
Ordo and the TLM. And that Catholics would speak up. They thought
their master plan was foolproof, but in the end, the actions of men
trying to replace Sacred Tradition is proving to be foolhardy, not
So, in the end, my opinion is just my opinion,
but it is based in fact. It isn't an easy opinion to hold and it is
hard to grasp, but I'd rather latch on to what Dom Gueranger and Pope
St. Pius X were trying to do, as opposed to what Bugnini and Pope Paul
VI actually did do. For it is with the former that the authentic
Liturgical Movement lies, not with the latter.
ETA: Update...Father Zuhlsdorf has posted at WDTPRS and it is absolutely consistent with my view....