Liturgy: A difficult time

by Editor · March 11, 2009

The Church in Southern Africa is facing a crisis in the aftermath of the implementation of the first phase of the revised missal.

The translations have drawn much public and private criticism among local clergy, religious and laity (though some have also publicly welcomed them). On top of that, the implementation was premature, prompting the Vatican�s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to order that the introduction of the new liturgical wordings be suspended. The bishops of Southern Africa are appealing against that instruction.

At this time, our bishops must be feeling immense pressure from all sides: from the Vatican as well as from those who are critical of the translations (which some bishops may not have welcomed themselves but accepted as part of a mandatory liturgical programme).

Our bishops implemented the new translations with the best of intentions, to facilitate pastoral preparation, catechism and the devising of appropriate liturgical music. Ironically, these are the same reasons the Congregation for Divine Worship gave for not implementing the changes at the present time. So, when the Vatican instructs the local Church to suspend the implementation until Missal III takes effect in all English-speaking regions, possibly as late as in 2011 or 2012, we must presume that this is to maintain a concerted pastoral strategy, not a reaction to the public criticisms in Southern Africa which may alarm other English-language regions.

The latter may nevertheless be an effect of the Southern African experience. The bishops of the United States are not unified in their assent to the new translations, and it is likely that the clergy and laity in regions such as the US and England & Wales will make their views known at least as forthrightly as their Southern African counterparts. The new translations may well cause divisions and disaffection, especially among those who object to them not on linguistic but on theological and ecclesiological grounds.

The experiences of Southern Africa therefore may have the salutary benefit of alerting the Vatican to potential hazards in the introduction of Missal III in two or three years� time.

The Vatican may well feel that it isn�t practicable or beneficial to throw out the new translations, even if bishops� conferences and their clergy and faithful object forcefully. It is difficult to see how a satisfactory compromise can be effected which would accommodate those who prefer to retain the 1973 version of the missal.

Likewise, it is difficult to see how the difference of perspectives between the Southern African bishops and the Congregation for Divine Worship can be resolved to mutual satisfaction. If the present situation is not handled sensitively, one side risks losing face. Should that side be the Southern African episcopacy, then their authority could well be injured. This is not desirable.

Another broader issue is the extent to which bishops exercise their authority as local ordinaries, and collectively in conference, in the territories entrusted to them by the Holy Father. Much as the true meaning of collegiality may be debated, it surely was not the vision of Vatican 2 that bishops should be treated as branch managers.

By appealing to the Vatican, our bishops are asserting themselves, an act of courage which will be watched closely by churches around the world. At issue, then, is not just a set of liturgical translations, but the role and authority of the residential bishop and local churches.

This is not an easy time for our bishops. All local Catholics, regardless of how they feel about the new translations, must keep the bishops in their prayers.