Which will probably never be considered, but here goes:
1. The CDWDS should retreat to the 2008 translation of the MR3, and prepare a like one for the German language. These translations should then be defined as the English and German typical editions never to be used for liturgy, but for translating into the world languages for which there is even less Roman competence than English and German.
2. We should resurrect the 1998 Sacramentary, already approved by the English-speaking bishops’ conferences and implement this by Advent 2012.
3. An open process should begin, and spend ten years to upgrade the Latin edition of the Roman Missal, implementing many suggestions from bishops for a greater harmonization between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This consultation should gather prayers and rituals composed in the vernacular from around the world, and be edited and incorporated into a library of rites fully congruent to the three-year Lectionary cycle, and the various needs of Catholics from around the world.
4. MR2 is a perfect interim vehicle for English-speaking Catholics to undertake a generation-long upgrade of the celebration of Mass: singing presidency, preaching workshops, and church-sponsored efforts in composing for the liturgy, and also the development of performing groups of high excellence (and various styles) to demonstrate the ideals of sacred music fully integrated into the liturgy.
5. By 2022, I think we’d be ready to translate MR4 and add English-language adaptations approved by the bishops, but not yet approved for universal use in the Roman Rite.
6. Repeat this renewal of the Roman Missal about twice a century, and maintain the gathering of riches of music, texts, and rituals from Catholics around the world. Rome works better when it adopts other forms as its own rather than wall in the museum riches.
There: a nice, neat liturgical manifesto to usher in a period of quiet on this blog as I head off to retreat. If there are any major liturgical developments, don’t bother to call me; my cell will be turned off. I won’t be online. I don’t even want to see a tv screen for the next six days. I’m going to enjoy the Liturgy of the Hours, some inspirational reading from the Scriptures and a few spiritual masters, and blessed silence.
23 October 2010 at 6:40 pm
Would you be willing to use the 1998 translation sans inclusive language?
29 October 2010 at 3:04 pm
Thanks for the patience for a reply, Liam. I think our best bet is to use the ’98 English MR2 however it came out. There are good literary ways around sexist language, but I think we need to wait for MR4 before working them out. The church atmosphere’s too charged to have a hope of resolving the issues of accuracy and sexism right now.
29 October 2010 at 5:48 pm
Well, unfortunately, I think that about dooms the idea of resurrecting MR2. MR2 tried to do too much at once, and I think those of us who want to preserve what is of clear value need to be willing to compromise on coming to consensus about what is of less clear value. We have to model what we would like to see from the other side.
30 October 2010 at 10:40 am
I don’t think the Church is prepared to tackle language issues tinged with politics right now. Inclusive language got a going-over by the bishops. MR2-98 was filled with compromise as it sits.
The one thing we can say is that MR2, like MR3 and MR1 were all bishop-approved as completed. We could reopen the MR2 book, I suppose. But what we need is a richer base document from which to work. I think I’m right in saying that that document is a generation away. The advantage in keeping MR1 or MR2 is that the motivation would be present on all sides to improve a less-than-ideal Missal.
I might be wrong, but I don’t see a lot of enthusiasm for taking the step from MR3 to MR4, especially from the Catholic Right. Do you?
30 October 2010 at 11:59 am
If you were to propose a modified MR2 that replaced the Ordo with the translation used in 1965 to the extent cognate, someone might bite from that side.
30 October 2010 at 12:03 pm
In other words, right now the compromise you propose offers nothing now to those who prefer MR3 were critical of MR1 and MR2. Basic negotiating is that you need to give enough of them something now to get something now. And it can’t be a token.
30 October 2010 at 3:18 pm
I suspect you are right, Liam, on the notion of compromise. Yet I wonder: how many people would really find MR2 a problem? It was prepared along the same lines as RCIA and OCF and the Pastoral Care rites, but I certainly don’t hear a clamor against the funeral rite texts as given.
25 October 2010 at 4:46 am
Have a peaceful and blessed retreat.