I just don't know what to say anymore

Some of you may be wondering if I have writer's block. With the lack of posts that would be an obvious conclusion. No, it has not been writer's block. I have been tied up pursuing my next job opportunity (a journey I am still on). What the title really refers to is the dilemma/challenge we will be facing when the new English translation is approved for the Roman Missal (formally known as the Sacramentary). What am I talking about and why does this matter? Well, read on for this highly anticipated blog. :)

First a little background (if you know all this bear with me). The Roman Missal contains the prayers that are recited at every Catholic Mass. It contains what is called the Order of the Mass as well as other blessings and prayers. In 2002, Pope John Paul II approved a new Latin version of the Missale Romanum. Prior to this the Vatican also released a new instruction as to how this should be translated into other languages. The basic gist of the document was that translations should be as true to the Latin as possible. This is a change from the past in which greater emphasis was placed on the language to which it was being translated. Well this has kind of turned the English-speaking liturgical world on its head. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) had to scrap most of the work on a translation they had been working on since 1973, because there was a new Latin version and because the rules for translation had changed. Check out "Lost in Translation: The Bishops, the Vatican & the English Liturgy" for the back story of all this from a pro-ICEL point of view. If you are a real liturgical geek, read this letter that described why the last translation was rejected by Congregation of Divine Worship.

So, it appears now that they have a translation of the bulk of the Order of the Mass that has been approved the Bishops of the United States. Like anything there are two camps on this issue (well maybe three if you count those that think the Mass should only be prayed in Latin). There are those that are angered by the translation that feel it should be left alone or should not be a literal translation and those that look forward to getting it approved so that we can move forward with it and be more in line with other the Latin and other translations.
I have gone back and forth on this issue. I don't look forward to the process of learning the new texts, and some of the translations feel clunky when I say them allowed (And with your spirit), but I feel a lot of the new translation clarifies some Catholic theology (...only say the word and my soul will be healed) or is more clearly reverant. As a few critics of my leadership as Director of Music at my fairly liberal parish would be quick to point out, I think it is important to make every attempt to stay true to the texts in the rubrics particularly the Eucharistic Acclamations. I am an advocate for inclusive language when referring to human kind, but have no problem and even prefer referring to God as Father, Lord, or with masculine pronouns. It drives me nuts when publishers go out of there way to remove masculine references to God. We are quick to grab onto the passages where Jesus tells us God wants to be so close to us that we can refer to him as "daddy", but we can't refer to God as him. That is just crazy, PC, zealous-femmist gibberish to me.

I think these are exciting times. There is unrest and division about what ultimately comes down to style, but there is also dialog and reflection on the true nature of God and his relationship with his Church. Ultimately it comes down to realizing that our words will always be inadequate to praise the Father, Creator of all, that Christ our Redeemer will still be present in the Eucharist and in our lives by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that even as the Mass continues to change throughout history, God will not.