THE NEW MISSAL

I was a young priest when the first Missal in English (then called 'The Sacramentary') appeared. I loved it. While not one hundred percent perfect in its language and syntax, it buoyed me up spiritually. The people loved it. We took to it like thirsty ducks to fresh water. I was studying in France in the sixties when the new French Missal arrived and it was met with memorable enthusiasm by people and clergy alike.
This new Roman Missal we've been using for the past two months is awful. I was prepared for something beautiful for God and the people. I had been prepped by all the hype to receive it with joy and a sense of relief. All kinds of names, well-known and not so well-known, appeared in the local diocesan newspaper telling us what a great inspiration it would be to our prayer and a help to our understanding of the Mass. Pious baloney! I wonder why I haven't heard from any of them since the Missal appeared on our altars!

I find very little in it that raises my drooping spirit to the Lord. I have in front of me the original fourth century Latin, of which the new Missal is supposed to be a literal translation, and it is beautiful. The translation is so literalistic as to be cumbersome and opaque. It reminds me of the language of the old devotional books that were in vogue in Ireland in the 'forties and 'fifties. While plowing through the turgidity of this new Missal during Mass, I often find myself wondering if I'm somehow back in the church of my childhood! The language, far from being the classical neo-Shakespearean English were told to expect, is not even decent English. What would have been so wrong about imitating the graceful style of the prayers in the Anglican Prayer Book?

'Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God' sounds like something a Victorian-era skivvy would cry out in a moment of frustration! 'Consubstantial' sounds like breaking glass every time I hear it. One person commented that she likes the new greeting at the beginning of Mass which has the words, 'the communion of the Holy Spirit,' because it confirmed her feeling that we receive the Holy Spirit in holy communion. Another sees the 'under my roof' as referring to the roof of the mouth, and proof that communion on the tongue is what God wants! So far, at least in my limited experience, the new Missal seems to be confusing people, not educating them.

It's a stretch to see how the mawkish sounding 'At the Savior's command and formed by divine teaching, we dare to say' is a faithful translation of the Latin ('Preceptis salutaribus moniti et divina institutione formati, audemus dicere.')There are fifty-three words in the opening sentence of the Preface to the Second Eucharistic Prayer, and no less than seventy in the first sentence of the prayer after the consecration ('anamnesis') of Eucharistic Prayer I! Reading them and many others reminds me of the unending, twisted, tortured and often unintelligible sentences of the late Karl Rahner. Here's the Opening Prayer ('Collect') for January 12: 'Attend to the pleas of your people with heavenly care, O Lord, we pray, that they may see what must be done and gain strength to do what they have seen. Through our Lord... etc.' For some reason that one came to mind as I watched the President's State of the Union address last night!

Sorry, but I find very little, if anything at all in this new book to turn me on. I feel embarrassed reading some of the stuff and wonder how it is being received in the pew. After almost half a century of priesthood I never thought I'd feel the lower level of enthusiasm I now experience while celebrating the Eucharist with the people - the Eucharist which is supposed to be 'the source and summit of the Christian life.' I thought my golden years would have deserved better. Why is my gut saying that a huge and expensive pastoral mistake has been made by handing us this Missal?

PASTOR EMERITUS