George Ripon, in his possum-stirring way, has been trying to get a response out of the leader of the Australian Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Philip Wilson, regarding the new Mess translations. So far he has not had a reply so he'd like to make the call a little more loudly by publishing his letters to Archbishop Philip more publicly. Here they are...

The most recent letter...

29 January 2010

Rev. Archbishop Philip Wilson DD JCL
The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference
GPO Box 368.
Canberra ACT 2601

Your Grace,

THE PROPOSED NEW MASS TRANSLATIONS

Archbishop Philip Wilson, President of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference

I wrote to you on 1 Dec. last regarding the above and I am still awaiting a formal reply. I did get a call from Fr. Brian Lucas who acknowledged my letter and advised that it would be "referred". I appreciated this call but he did advise that the "horse had bolted". I took this to mean that our bishops like those in the US and the UK had accepted the new translations. Bearing in mind the poor (to put it mildly) quality of the translations I am led to assume that the bishops had "orders" from Rome to accept and pass a fait accompli. Otherwise how could a scholarly body like our bishops sanction such pathetic English. I suspect that many bishops would agree with me were they willing to speak out, not easy in the present climate.

So I would appreciate a reply to my letter. Rome and our bishops need to learn that the days are long gone when the (remaining) faithful are willing to "Pay, Pray and Obey and be ignored and kept in the dark. If ever there was a time for the "Church" to listen it is now. I am aware that others who have written to the ACBC have also been ignored, so with respect its not good enough!!

As a sign of my genuine concern for our church I an enclosing a listing of my published articles dating back to Online Catholics in 2005.

As my original letter was addressed to the Conference I would like it to be circulated to all bishops on your mailing list. I suspect that many would agree with the sentiments expressed.

Yours,

George Ripon

The original letter of 1st December 2009...

29 January 2010

Rev. Archbishop Philip Wilson DD JCL
The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference
GPO Box 368.
Canberra ACT 2601

Your Grace,

THE PROPOSED NEW MASS TRANSLATIONS

I write as a cradle catholic, now in my early eighties to express my concern at the proposed new Mass translations. Information from outside sources suggests that it is Rome's intention to impose these on the faithful with no prior consultation. Is this the case?

You will be aware that with the benefit of the Internet, information hitherto kept under wraps is now freely available and this includes many matters relevant to our Church to-day, world wide. I would prefer to get information direct from our bishops but I could find nothing relevant on the ACBC website. The new wordings are, of course, available from other sources together with much commentary — a lot of it unfavourable.

On the question of keeping the people (of God) advised on proposed changes I here refer to the late Archbishop of Melbourne, Frank Little. In the late Eighties he set up the Melbourne Deaneries. In the spirit of Vatican II he asked the parish clergy and the faithful to confer on the future of our church as we approached the third millennium. No agenda was set and he made it clear that the people would be heard. Having served two separate terms on the Oakleigh Deanery (mid nineties and '04-'09) I have no recollection of the proposed new translations ever being referred. Likewise as a regular Mass attender I never saw any reference in the weekly notices nor heard anything from the pulpit about the proposals.

In my view the problems start with the obsession with Latin, a dead language. It was never the language of Jesus, only coming into the church in the fourth century. Why therefore, should the new translation be based literally on the Mass of Pius V going back 439 years to 1570? It makes no sense in 2009.

Nevertheless the English scholarship of the original ICEL [International Commission on English in the Liturgy] closely followed the existing texts simplifying them and putting them into good modern English. The English vernacular Mass was joyfully "Received" by the People of God. Is "Reception" still valid in our church to-day?

With respect to our bishops I have to raise the question as to whether they were consulted and allowed to make frank responses to the proposed changes. On reviewing these I feel certain that many of our bishops would have had serious reservations about the quality of the English scholarship. Is "Collegiality" another casualty of Vatican II? In the absence of open reports on any deliberations it's difficult to make any judgement. So why the orchestrated secrecy?

Some of our bishops will, no doubt, have followed the commentaries on the "Net" many of which, to my mind, make sense. Weird words and expressions abound such as "sullied", "unfeigned", "thwart", "wrought", "ineffable", "gibbet", "consubstantial" and many more. Expressions like "and with your spirit and "under my roof" clearly highlight an unhealthy obsession with the past. A real howler occurs at the end of the Creed where two sentences begin with the word "And', neither sentence has a subject nor a verb. The Eucharist is a community celebration, why therefore replace "We" with "I"?, is this just more change for the sake of change?

Before getting to the CDW [Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments] I referred to the Constitution on the Sacred liturgy in the documents of Vatican II, This was published by Paul VI, Servant of the Servants of God on Dec. 4th 1963. In Part 3 at section 22:2 and 36:4 it is quite clear that the English speaking bishops had responsibility for the English translations and this they did well with the excellent wordings now under attack. Why did the CDW with minimal (if any) English scholarship take control? Were the members of the new ICEL voted in by the bishops of the English-speaking countries? Later were the members of Vox Clara similarly elected? If not, why not?

I see in recent days that the US Bishops Conference (Minutes published) has passed the new translations and conceded translation of the antiphons to the CDW. Did the ACBC have any say here?

I maintain, with due humility, that I have "Kept the Faith" as best I could and am deeply saddened by many things happening and not happening in our Church to-day. The worst is the failure by Rome to do anything about the shortage of priests. There are others about which I have written in other places.

I have raised many questions and for my own benefit and to assist in a reply I summarise these :­

• Is it Rome's intention to impose these changes without any consultation with the People of God?
• Was there ever any consultation here with clergy, deaneries or other Catholic bodies?
• Why the obsession with a dead language, Latin?
• Was the Bishop's Conference allowed to make any real changes?
• Is "Reception" still a valid concept? (Third Rite !!)?
• Why the secrecy, no minutes, no reports, (Website)?
• Can the Bishops, on behalf of Australian Catholics "Opt out"? IF not, could we get a moratorium, say 3 years for consultation?
• Who is responsible for the weird words and expressions?
• Why "I" and not "We" in a community celebration?
• Was reference made to Paul VI's Vat II document on Liturgy?
• Were new members of the revised ICEL elected by the English speaking bishops ?
• Were members of "Vox Clara" elected by the English speaking bishops ?

I write with great respect for our bishops but also with sadness in my heart for many matters currently involving our church. In this matter has any consideration been given to the monetary costs? Churches will need new Missals, Lectionaries, Sacramentaries, Hymnals and instruction books for the faithful, Will poorer parishes get Diosesan subsidies?

As a catholic in the pews I would greatly appreciate a response to the matters raised. As I write to you as Chairperson of the ACBC I have no objection to this letter being circulated to the other bishops.

Yours,

George Ripon

George Ripon 27/01/10

LINKS:
ICEL Website :
www.icelweb.org
ICEL on Wikipedia :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_English_in_the_Liturgy
CDW Website :
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/
CDW on Wikipedia :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_Divine_Worship_and_the_Discipline_of_the_Sacraments
Vox Clara Media Releases :
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_vox-clara_index_en.html

[Index of Commentaries by George Ripon]