1998 sacramentary pdf

The new edition of the missal would be prepared in a similar way to the newest versions of the Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children. In this way parishes would be free to use either translation. Obviously, the use of two translations simultaneously is not an ideal situation. I would propose that once the adapted Sacramentary translation was introduced this would be followed by a period of stability. Then a new translation could be prepared that could take the best of both the and versions.

In the meantime, both translations would be legitimate options and time would tell which version was found to be more prayerful for the general Catholic population. I fully realize that this is not the most practical suggestion. Whatever one might think of it, the translation is a fact.

Virtually every parish in the English-speaking world has already adopted it and thousands of worship aids and prayer books already use that translation. The introduction of a second translation would ruffle some feathers and would entail a certain amount of catechesis and faith formation. Practically speaking it is definitely easier to simply stick our heads in the sand and do nothing. But that is precisely what I am afraid of.

I believe that all Catholics must fight to make our celebration of the Eucharist as fruitful as possible. In one of my favorite quotations of Alexander Schmemann, he warns of the danger of domesticating the Eucharist:.

It suddenly became clear to me that ultimately, deeply, deeply, there is a demonic fight in our Church with the Eucharist—and it is not by chance! And it became clear to me that if I had a vocation, it is here, in the fight for the Eucharist, against this reduction, against the de-churching of the Church—which happened through clericalization on one hand, and through worldliness on the other.

We cannot allow our liturgical future to be decided by what is the path of least resistance. I hope everyone agrees that translation is not everything; no matter how good a translation we might have, fidelity to Christ is still vital.

Good liturgy must go hand in hand with holiness of life, or, as David Fagerberg has termed it, liturgical asceticism. Perhaps I will be proven mistaken and the majority of Catholics will prefer the current translation to the effort, but I believe that we ought to find out.

He currently ministers in the Archdiocese of Armagh, Ireland, where he serves as vice rector at Redemptoris Mater Seminary. Is the Missal available online? I keep hearing reports about how wonderful it is, but have no means of forming my own judgement. It ought, also, to be possible to produce a version of Divine Worship which is ready for use within a short space of time.

That I have seen, and it is so evidently superior to the both the and translations, that I believe it would be popular with many people. We are sorry for any confusion. The Divine Worship ritual edition is readily available. A link is in the main body of the post should bring you to the CTS webpage where it can easily be purchased. It is fully approved for use, but only for liturgies within the various ordinariates. The book is a little on the expensive side, but that could well be down to the limited market for the ritual edition.

However, it is not approved for general use within the Roman Rite. He says that people are now used to them. While that may be true at one level, the fact is that they still do not come naturally to many people. Furthermore, it is clear from talking to people that their spirituality has been affected. At a time when the Church was reeling from the clergy sex abuse scandals, it was nothing less than disastrous to pull the rug out from under their prayer lives, and many have still not forgiven the Church for this.

Just as important, as I also said in that other thread, the ecumenical implications of not reverting to the texts we had in common are considerable. I think we really need to undo the damage done by LA and the translation to interchurch relations.

It would be foolish to retain what we have now just because we have it now, or because we spent a lot of money on what we have now.

Having a translation that speaks to people and nourishes their spirituality is beyond price. Yes, our bishops will have to eat humble pie and admit that they made a big pastoral mistake, but my sense is that people will respect them and not deride them for that. Paul, I have no great love for the current responses.

There is a very strong argument for revising them, and with reference to Chupungco in particular , there may even be theological problems in their current translation. However, my proposal is to provide a relatively quick, easy and workable solution to a pastoral problem. If people find different responses to the Mass depending on the parish or the celebrant of the Mass it would be disconcerting. Also for a common musical repertoire, we need to have common words.

If an optional version was introduced it could be easily integrated into worshipping communities. My hope would be that a few years after the modified Sacramentary was introduced, a wholescale revision could be started that would take account of both translations, and any other relevant linguistic and liturgical developments. The pastoral concern cuts both ways.

Remember that the polls showed a split between young and old priests and young and old Catholics over the translation. The response of many to the translation was like that of Josiah when the old Law was read for the first time in generations.

The proposed two-stage adoption of the translation without much change will make the problem worse. I think that the process of rejection of the Scaramentary was simply unjust. However, I think that given the perceived with the current translation as, for example, the bishops of New Zealand seem to think , the translation could be tried in the field and then let the best translation win!

That itself would take considerable time, of course, but it would be necessary to reduce selection bias, confirmation bias and a host of other typical cognitive bias problems in the parochial setting. The current collect prayers were created many centuries ago when a very different lectionary was in use.

They are on a one-year cycle. The Alternative Opening Prayers not only relate to the scriptures of the day and help to give them life, they are also substantial and feed people in a way that the current collects do not. The creation of new texts will be necessary. The Vox Clara product, while defective in many ways, does not fail in one sense: It could have a future as a critical source for translation into third-generation receiving languages, especially languages that are not capably represented by trained Latin scholars.

Except where the prayer is so badly translated as to mislead: e. A translation aid for other languages in English is fine. Also, I think we are partly victims of the success of English as the new global lingua franca. Particularly given that one suspects the English translation is the true editio typica that many other language versions are translated from. However, an acknowledgement of the importance of English, should not mean that we have to be saddled with a liturgical version in English that is very hard for the regular churchgoer to understand.

For example, the United Bible Societies publishes a series of handbooks of helps for translators one for each book of the Bible. These are invaluable and there is no reason that a similar handbook could be prepared in English to help future translators of the Missal. Likewise, an interlinear or a hyperliteral translation would be fine. But again, these would not be ritual books themselves. It is a mistake to foist a translation aid for non-English translators on English-speaking worshippers.

The rest is stuff which will sink in over time except where expressed so badly as to be incomprehensible. These three texts are only needed by the celebrant, the rest of us listen and assent, so can be provided as a supplement to the Sacramentary.

That could be produced very easily. Change, albeit small, ASAP. Anthony Hawkins is pointing to something I think is worth considering. As a second step, why not authorize the translation of EP I through IV with the acclamations standardized , in the form of a supplement, again for a period of experimentation.

Then, after actually living with these texts, the bishops, priests, and people will have a much better sense of what is fruitful, absent a spirit of polemics and hostility. Some of the process will help develop wisdom about the sound of the translations. Then it would be much easier to see how a transition could be made into using the whole book, with whatever amendments are necessary, after due consideration. Gradual change makes better sense to me than an abrupt change.

I know for sure that many priests would feel immediate relief if the collects were made available in more comprehensible and proclaimable English. Rita, I totally agree with you. I would just leave the peoples responses alone.

We can have a high church, Roman, Elizabethan English translation of the orations alongside a low church, modern translation of the same prayer and let the presider pick which one he wants to use. We could do the same with the Scripture translations. I think it would be an ideal compromise, and win, win for everyone. It would also allow the polemics to settle down and provide some stability to the liturgy.

Because you know if the translation is approved cart blanch, the opposing sides just change from defense to offense — and the liturgy wars will go on forever. Some did have legitimate complaints about the translation and the proposed translation of the rite of Ordination if I recall, and these issues seem to be completely ignored by the lovers of the 98 translation. This is definitely not something that should be left to presidential discretion — a lose, lose for everyone.

Too many people not limited to one end of the spectrum or the other are willing to capture forms of palace revolution-type methods for results that they prefer. And thus the formation of the Catholic faithful in authentic forms of community-wide discernment get elided because they will necessarily take so much time, effort and frustration especially of our own desiderata. So much easier to get the quicker gratification of doing what we want faster before we die — of course for their ostensible benefit.

A Book of the Chair, which is missing for the Missal, is sorely needed. The new translations of the Roman Missal into German, French, and Italian, that were originally meant to be republished at more or less the same time as the English ver- sion, have run into serious difficulties. The bishops of these countries have been unable to reach an agreement with the Vatican and these regions continue to use the older translations.

God already knows what is in our hearts long before we express it. Therefore, we must insist that our liturgical translations be rendered in as understandable a style as possible while also insisting on clarity of doc- trine in these translations. For this purpose the rites are to be simplified. However, what is not widely known is that an unpublished translation of the Roman Missal also exists. I am refer- ring to what is commonly known as the Sacramentary translation.

This translation was ultimately rejected by Rome and the current translation was commissioned to replace it. In this article I make the case, considering both the widespread dissatisfaction with the translation and the serious obligation of the Church to pray in a manner 5. Sacrosanctum Concilium The First English Translation of the Roman Missal As Vatican II progressed, it became clear that the vernacular would soon become more common in liturgical worship.

But hearing parts of the Mass in a language they could under- stand proved to be extremely popular with the faithful and by Pope Paul VI had approved the translation of the whole Mass into the vernacular. But generally two main theories have been proposed for Catholic liturgical texts.

Finn and James M. Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy —, trans. Matthew J. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, , Some Catholics of an older generation may be used to translations made using an exagger- ated method.

Unfortunately for copyright reasons this article cannot be uploaded in its entirety to Academia. This is available on many university library websites. If you have any difficulties finding this paper, please feel free to contact me personally so that I can help you in your search. Tracey, eds. Essays in Honour of Patrick Jones. Dublin: Veritas, , pp By Fr. Neil Xavier O'Donoghue. Thomas M Kocik.